Obama Bad

General Topic Areas

Link Ocean Policy General
Ocean policy drains capital causes partisan fighting and spills over to other
legislation
David Helvarg, award winning environmental journalist and Executive Director of Blue Frontier, 2-14-
2014 http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361-the-oceans-demand-our-
attention DA: 6/4/14

The latest battle over the future of Americas ocean frontier is being fought out in a seemingly unrelated bill in Congress .
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently introduced his National Endowment for the Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to
work on dams, dredging and flood control. The Endowment would establish a permanent fund based on offshore energy revenue for scientific research and coastal restoration. On the House side Tea
Party Republican Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel out any funding that might allow the Army Corps to participate in the Obama administrations
National Ocean Policy, which he claims would empower the EPA to control the property of his drought-plagued constituents should any rain (generated by the ocean) land on their rooftops. One rider represents
a constructive addition and the other a paranoid partisan impediment to an ocean policy aimed at coordinating federal agencies in ways that could reduce conflict,
redundancy and government waste, putting urban planning in the water column, in the words of former Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster response to Hurricane Katrina
and the BP oil blow out understands the importance of working together when responding to a disaster. And like it or not, overfishing, pollution, coastal sprawl and climate change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas.
Unfortunately progress towards a major reorganization of how we as a nation manage and benefit from our ocean continues to advance with all
the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail). In 2004 ocean conservationists held their first Blue Vision Summit in Washington D.C. It was there Rep. Sam
Farr (D-Calif.) called for a Big Ocean Bill, to incorporate many of the recommendations of the 2003 Pew Oceans Commission and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first blue ribbon panels to examine the state of
Americas blue frontier in over three decades. During his presidency, George W. Bush established major marine reserves in the Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own federal commissions recommendations along with those of the
Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now retired), Leon Panetta. As a result Americas seas continue to be poorly managed by 24 different federal agencies taking a piecemeal approach to their oversight under 144
separate laws. In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions recommendations that he agreed to do. By the time of the 2009 Blue Vision Summit it was clear Congress had
become too polarized to pass major ocean reform legislation at the level of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the last century. Still, activists gathered there were
thrilled to hear the new White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy initiative by the Obama administration. This was followed by a series of six public
hearings over the next year held in different parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent of public comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based
regional planning for ocean uses.
Oceans cause controversy ideological divide and knee-jerk hostility only new
evidence assumes the gridlocked Congress
Tom Allen is the president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers and a board member of
the Ocean Conservancy. He represented Maines 1st District in Congress for six terms. , 12-4-2013
Challenges of a Changing Ocean: Can Congress Act in Time? | Commentary
http://www.rollcall.com/news/challenges_of_a_changing_ocean_can_congress_act_in_time_commentary
-229390-1.html?pg=1 DA: 6/6/14

In a Congress marred by gridlock and partisan brinkmanship , a surprising opportunity has emerged to
strengthen our nations ocean and coastal communities, businesses and environment. Congress should seize the moment and establish the long-recommended National Endowment for the Oceans,
Coasts and Great Lakes. Unless Congress acts now, the opportunity will slip away. The House and Senate Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) bills currently in conference contain competing provisions with competing
visions for the future of ocean and coastal management in America. This legislative conflict is part of our countrys broader ideological struggle, but
with this difference: On the ocean, no state government, chamber of commerce or environmental group can exercise coordinated and
effective leadership alone. The Senate-passed WRDA bill includes an amendment from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that provides for a National Endowment for the Oceans that
passed with strong bipartisan support. The endowment would authorize grants to universities, states and local organizations for ocean research, mapping, monitoring, conservation and restoration projects work that is critical to
coastal economies that rely on a healthy ocean with well-managed resources. It reflects the belief that the federal government has an important role to
play in strengthening coastal communities, helping ocean-dependent businesses and improving the health of our ocean environment. By contrast, the WRDA bill passed by the House of Representatives
includes an amendment from Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would undermine our National Ocean Policy, smart ocean planning and ecosystem approaches to ocean resource management. In an era when we need
government to work better, smarter, and more effectively, the National Ocean Policy and smart ocean planning are just common sense. They allow the local, state, tribal and federal entities responsible for ocean
management to work across jurisdictional boundaries and proactively tackle challenges in a forward-looking way. To take those tools away would be bad for ocean health, bad for the ocean economy and bad for coastal communities.
This legislative head-to-head dispute reflects the broader ideological struggle that haunts the halls of
Congress today. Its between those who believe that the government can be a vehicle to serve the common
good and those who believe that nearly all government action restricts personal freedom. We have for too long taken the ocean
for granted. Its immense size and apparent resilience fooled us into thinking that humans could draw on it for limitless protein and use it as a garbage dump. But now the ocean and our coastal communities face serious challenges.
Coral reefs are in steep decline. Many fisheries continue to struggle. Water quality problems and toxic algae blooms threaten beaches and clam diggers. Ocean acidification is worsening each year, threatening multigeneration family-
owned shellfish farms. Trash litters the open ocean, occasionally exacerbated by tragic events such as the Japanese tsunami. And sea level rise is just over the horizon. The WRDA conferees and Congress should choose thoughtful
long-term engagement to protect and enhance ocean quality over the all-too-common knee-jerk hostility toward any new government
initiative. Ironically, ocean issues didnt generate such partisan conflict until recently. As a founding member of the bipartisan
House Oceans Caucus, I can say that working across the aisle on ocean issues used to be far more commonplace. For example, the idea of a permanent ocean endowment was
proposed back in 2004 by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy a commission appointed entirely by President George W. Bush. When the commission first floated the idea of an ocean trust fund in a draft report and asked
governors for comment, support was overwhelming and bipartisan. Of the 20 coastal governors who submitted comments on an ocean trust fund, 19 supported the idea six Democrats and 13 Republicans. Only one Democratic
governor expressed any opposition.
Oceans costs PC Obama push ensures opposition
Pete Stauffer Senior Manager, Ocean Program at Surfrider Foundation 6-1-2014 Keep the Stoke
Alive Comments More Sharing ServicesShare Texas Lawmaker Leads Attack on our National Ocean
Policy http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/congress-takes-aim-at-our-national-ocean-policy
DA: 6/6/14

Who is Congressmen Bill Flores and what does he have against the ocean? Last week, the Republican lawmaker from Bryan, Texas led yet another effort in
Congress to undermine the National Ocean Policy (NOP). By a mostly party line vote, the U.S. House passed his amendment to an
appropriations bill (HR 4660) to defund the National Ocean Policy. The measure will next be considered by the Senate. Incredibly, this is Rep. Flores sixth attempt
in the past two years to obstruct implementation of the National Ocean Policy through a legislative amendment. This raises an important question: why is a lawmaker from a
land-locked district taking such a keen interest in ocean policy? The answer, not surprisingly, is politics. When the
National Ocean Policy was established by President Obama in 2010 it signaled a serious attempt to address the many shortcomings of our nations piecemeal approach to ocean management.
Taking its cue from the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy - a bipartisan body established by President George W. Bush - the policy emphasizes improved collaboration
across all levels of government to address priorities such as water quality, marine debris, and renewable energy A cornerstone of the policy is the establishment of regional ocean parterships
(ROPs) that empower states to work with federal agencies, stakeholders, tribes, and the public to plan for the future of the ocean. In just three years, important progress has been made, despite a
glaring lack of support from Congress. An Implementation Plan has been released with hundreds of actions that federal agencies are taking
to protect marine ecosystems and coastal economies. Collaborative projects are moving forward to restore habitats, advance ocean science, and engage stakeholders. And
finally, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast regions have begun ocean planning to enusure that future development will mimize impacts to the environment and existing users. Of course,
such success stories do not resonate well in Washington D.C., where controversy rules the day and
political parties instinctively oppose each others proposals . As an initiative of the Obama Presidency, the
policy has suffered from partisan attacks , despite the collaborative framework it is based upon. Yet, such political gamesmanship by our federal leaders is
obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National Ocean Policy are taking hold in states and regions across the country, even without the meaningful support of Congress.
Causes political fighting no clear jurisdiction
Christos Makridis, Research Fellow at the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at
Stanford University and a Ph.D. student at Stanford University's Department of Management Science and
Engineering, A Tale of Two Countries: Markets and Transboundary Water Governance between the
United States and Mexico, 2-4-2013,
https://people.stanford.edu/cmakridi/sites/default/files/Makridis%20-
%20Markets%20and%20Transboundary%20Water.pdf DA: 6/5/14

Countries have long fought over access to water resources. Waters unique attributes as a quasi public and private good
distinguish it from other economic goods and services.1 While national and international competition over water resources is not new, many
of the advances in industrial organization and applied microeconomics have not yet been integrated into
the literature on transboundary governance and sustainability. In particular, there is sparse literature that applies market design elements of
incentive compatibility among heterogeneous actors in the context of transboundary water governance. Recent events have accentuated the importance of developing mutually benecial policy
rules for resolving water resources. First, environmental externalities associated with water use are increasing. For example, climate change is expected to make water resources much more
scarce, relative to their current scarcity (Backus et al, 2010). Likewise, the recent 2010 Gulf Oil spill resulted in signicant economic and
environmental damages both for many years to come (i.e. temporally) and throughout the entire Gulf region (i.e. spatially) (National
Commission, 2011). Second, conict over water resources seems to be increasing. For example, recent disputes in the South China Sea (SCS) have captivated the international communitys
attention with the prospects of con- ict. Sparked by competition over the SCS water resource, in part because of its large hydrocarbon reserves, China has contested the property rights of
neighboring countries, including: Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan (Makridis, 2013). That transboundary governance of water resources is
inherently political and contentious underscores the importance of designing eective markets and institutions capable of promoting ecient and equitable
outcomes for involved parties.
Link Ocean Policy Exploration
Ocean exploration costs PC no Congressional constituency and funding concerns
stall debates
Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress 6-20-2013
Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/
DA: 6/11/14

Star Trek would have us believe that space is the final frontier, but with apologies to the armies of Trekkies, their oracl e might be a tad off base. Though we know little about outer space, we still have plenty of frontiers to explore here on
our home planet. And theyre losing the race of discovery. Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as Titanic and Avatar, brought this message to Capitol Hill last week,
along with the single-seat submersible that he used to become the third human to journey to the deepest point of the worlds oceansthe Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into spaceincluding Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the committee before
which Cameron testifiedand 12 people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon. All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean
counterpart by such a wide margin. In fiscal year 2013 NASAs annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for everything NOAA
doesfishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programswas about $5 billion, and NOAAs Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is
wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And thats not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to
human life. The single-seat submersible, Deepsea Challenger, which James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot)The single-seat submersible, Deepsea Challenger, which
James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot) Yet space travel excites Americans imaginations in a
way ocean exploration never has. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck
Rogers in the 25th Century, and 2001 A Space Odyssey. Then there are B-movies such as Plan Nine From Outer Space and everything ever mocked on Mystery Science Theater 2000. There are even parodies: Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, and Mars Attacks! And lets not forget
Camerons own contributions: Aliens and Avatar. When it comes to the ocean, we have 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Sponge Bob Square Pants, and Camerons somewhat lesser-known filmThe Abyss. And thats about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what
plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as Mohawk Guy for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of
spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference fromall but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself. Part of this incongruity
comes from access. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about whats out there. Were presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have
all been wishing on stars since we were children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do
cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak .
Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of Ameri cas exclusive economic zonethe undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the
quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus. In a time
of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our
exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest
source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of course space exportation does have benefits beyond the cool factor of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions
created to facilitate space travel have become ubiquitous in our livescell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a fewand research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the technological and medical fields. Yet
despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations
published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside the jurisdiction of any i ndividual country. The United States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185 nations that have ratified the
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered
a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in
this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the governance structure for these activities. Toward the end of last weeks hearing, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
hypothetically asked where we would be today if we had spent half as much moneyexploringthe oceans as we have spent exploring space. Given the
current financial climate in Congress, we wont find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill. But there
may be another way. Cameron is currently in preproduction on the second and third Avatar films. He says the former will be set on an ocean planet. No one except he and his fellow producers at 20th Century Fox really know how much the first installment of the movie series cost, but
estimates peg it at approximately $250 millionor 10 times the total funding for NOAAs Ocean Exploration program. Since the original Avatar grossed more than $2 billion at the box office worldwide, if NASA isnt willing to hand over a bit of its riches to help their oceanic co-
explorers, maybe Cameron and his studio partners can chip a percent or two off the gross fromAvatar 2 to help fill the gap. Come to think of it, if the key to exploring the oceans hinges either on Hollywood giving
up profits or Congress increasing spending, maybe we are more likely to mine asteroids after all.
Ocean exploration funding is a heavy lift causes Congressional controversy
Jeff Mervis reports on science policy in the United States and around the world. He's covered science
policy for more than 30 years, including a stint at Nature, and joined Science in 1993.
3-25-2013 Congress Completes Work on 2013 Spending Bill
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/03/congress-completes-work-2013-spending-bill DA: 6/11/14

U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the rest of the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20 March on
a bill to fund the government through 30 September. The heavy lifting was completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the
Senate's version. The so-called continuing resolution modifies some of the more onerous aspects of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester that went into effect earlier this month. But
the spending bill retains the overall $85 billion reduction in a trillion-dollar budget that covers discretionary spending (which covers most science agencies). The Senate bill provides a detailed
spending road map for the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Nat ional Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have received very little guidance beyond an overall amount they can spend. Dickering
over the National Oceanoic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) 2013 budget caused plenty of sturm and drang over the
past year. But the final outcome has agency advocates feeling somewhat serene. "NOAA did well given the constraints of a very tough budget situationnot perfect, but it could have
been much, much worse," says Scott Rayder, a former top NOAA aide who is now a senior adviser at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom
line: Thanks to Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a
Sandy relief bill approved earlier this year that specifies how the agency must use the funds. The result is that some of NOAA's research accounts will still feel pain from the automatic cuts
known as the sequester. The math can be hard to follow. Overall, Congress gave NOAA $5.1 billion in its final 2013 spending bill, matching the president's request. At first glance, that total
appears to be an increase. But the bill also requires a cut of nearly 2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits, reducing the total to about $5 billion. The
sequesterabout a 5% cutfurther reduces the total to about $4.74 billion, some $150 million below NOAA's 2012 total of $4.89 billion. The Sandy relief bill finalized in February, however,
added $476 million to NOAA's budget for a range of specific needs, such as repairing laboratories and "hurricane hunter" aircraft and new weather radars and satellites. The add-on put NOAA
back into the black for 2013, despite the sequester, and gives the agency greater spending flexibility for some programs. Other programs, however, will still feel pain. The
largest, including its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the National Marine Fisheries Service, are likely to end up with flat or slightly reduced budgets.
And at least one research-related program will cease to exist. Congress endorsed a controversial plan to shut down NOAA's National Undersea
Research Program (NURP) , a $4 million program that gives academic scientists access to research submersibles, and to fold it into the agency's broader ocean exploration program. But
lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they
agreed, should be allowed to compete for continuing funding. The agency will also have to tell Congress what it plans to do with NURP's small fleet of piloted and automated undersea craft.
Ocean exploration funding controversial past debates prove
Linda Larson has over 25 years of environmental law and land use experience. Over the course of her career, she has managed numerous
complex litigation matters. She has successfully resolved disputes ranging from site remediation to endangered species, and has particular
experience with marine resources and sediments issues. Linda served as staff counsel to Senator Warren Magnuson on the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Committee and as an attorney with the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. She practiced for many years with
Heller Ehrman, and chaired its Northwest environmental practice group. and Jessica Ferrell focuses on environmental and natural
resource litigation. She represents public and private clients in cases arising under the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, NEPA, CERCLA, MTCA, the Clean Water Act, and other federal, state, and local environmental laws. 4-
3-2009 Bounty for Land and Sea: Congress Passes Omnibus Public Lands Act
http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20090403-omnibus-public-lands-act DA: 6/11/14

On March 30, 2009, after lengthy and often acrimonious debate in Congress, President Obama signed into law the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (the "Act").
The Act sets aside two million acres of wilderness more than the combined acreage designated by the past three Congresses.[1] It also substantially increases federal funding for research into ocean
science, including an ambitious ocean and coastal mapping program and interdisciplinary research into the causes and management of ocean acidification.The Act affects a broad array of interests, including oil and gas developers in Wyoming, Alaska and other states; water
purveyors nationwide (particularly in California); livestock producers, wildlife managers in the Rocky Mountain region, and state and regional regulators charged with protecting coastal and estuarine areas and watersheds. Wilderness Prot ection, New National Parks and Monuments The Act
expands wilderness areas located in nine states California, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia. It will provide new or additional federal protection to, among other areas, the Sierra Nevada, White, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains in
California; Mt. Hood, high desert wilderness, and the Wild and Scenic John Day River in Oregon; canyon country in northern New Mexico; the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia; and the Rocky Mountain National Park and Indian Peaks Wilderness in Colorado. The Act will
create some new areas and expand existing national parks, monuments, and historic sites. It also codifies the National Landscape Conservation System, which protects national icons and monuments managed by the Bureau of Land Management.[2] Climate Change and Water: Bureau of
Reclamation Authorizations and Water Settlements In the Act, Congress found that: global climate change poses a significant challenge to the protection and use of the water resources of the United States due to an increased uncertainty with respect to the timing, form, and geographical
distribution of precipitation, which may have a substantial effect on the supplies of water for agricultural, hydroelectric power, industrial, domestic supply, and environmental needs.[3] Recognizing that States bear the primary responsibility and authority for managing the water resources of
the United States, the Senate still found that the Federal Government should support the States, as well as regional, local, and tribal governments, by carrying out, for example, national research activities and actions to increase the efficient use of water throughout the United States.[4]
Toward this end, Title IX of the Act authorizes funding for local and regional water projects to improve water use efficiencies and update aging infrastructure. It provides for research on the effects of climate change on water, and authorizes projects to provide sustainable wat er supplies to
rural communities. More specifically, Title IX authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation, along with other agencies, to establish a climate change adaptation program to address water shortages. It provides for the creation of a panel consisting of federal, state and local officials to address the
effects of climate change on water resources and flood management. The Act would also require feasibility studies addressing water supplies in Idaho, Arizona and California, and explore water conservation and water supply enhancement projects in Oregon, California, New Mexico, and
Colorado. Finally, Title IX attempts to address aging dams and associated infrastructure by, among other things, authorizing appropriations to carry out identified maintenance.[5] In Title X, containing the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act provision, the Act authorizes
implementation of the settlement reached in Natural Resource Defense Council v. Orange Cove Irrigation District,[6] which created the San Joaquin River Restoration Program(the SJRRP). The SJRRP resulted from18 years of federal litigation addressing competing water needs fromand
around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast, and supplies water to over 20 million people.[7] The case involved 14 conservation and fishing groups, 22 water contractors, and three federal agencies. It addressed various water disputes,
including issues over water flows provided to endangered fish. The parties crafted the settlement to achieve two broad goals: (1) a restoration goal, to restore and maintain fish populations in certain areas of the San Joaquin river; and (2) a water management goal, to reduce or avoid water
supply impacts to certain long-term water contractors that may result from flows provided for fish in the settlement.[8] The parties executed a separate Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California to assist with implementing and funding the settlement. Still, the parties require
federal funding. The Act provides for nearly $1 billion in federal funds and requires an aggregate commitment of at least $200 million from the State of California.[9] Oceans: Coastal Protection Grants, New Science Initiatives Led by NOAA Title XII is comprised of many
separate acts creating major new programs aimed at increasing scientific knowledge related to ocean, coastal and Great
Lakes resources and preserving significant coastal and estuarine habitat: The NOAA Undersea Research Program Act and associat ed authority for ocean exploration establish new research programs for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authorize appropriations of over $500 million for the next seven years to implement those programs. Research is to be aimed at increasing scientific knowledge
essential for the informed management, use, and preservation of oceanic, marine, and coastal areas and the Great
Lakes and is to be conducted by NOAA in coordination with other federal agencies, educational entities, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and a network of regional research centers. The Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act calls for the creation of an innovative
nation mapping plan for the nations coasts, oceans and Great Lakes to be coordinated at the federal level by NOAA.[11] NOAA may establish up to three ocean and coastal mapping centers, co-located at an institution of higher education that will serve as hydrographic centers of
excellence.


Link Ocean Policy Funding
Ocean spending costs PC GOP opposition
Juliet Eilperin, Staff Writer at The Washington Post 10-28-2012 National ocean policy sparks
partisan fight http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-
partisan-fight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html DA: 6/6/14
Partisan battles are engulfing the nations ocean policy, showing that polarization over environmental
issues doesnt stop at the waters edge.

For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year
fights. Conservative Republicans warn that the administration is determined to expand its regulatory reach
and curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow
a fundamental issue the countrys patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obamas July
2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean users. The policy is already having an impact. The council, for
example, is trying to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial
fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them removed. Still, activists invoking the ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited
the policy as a reason to slow the speed of vessels traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last
year, the panels top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. Rep. Steve Southerland II
(R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms. An environmental group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands
of dollars to unseat him. The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay
could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Massachusetts adopted its
own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick. The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the
benefit and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination. Nearly a decade ago, two
bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from shore. When Romney moved to
establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that without it there could be a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a first come, first served basis. In Washington, however,
legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the country the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific to set
up regional bodies to offer input. White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. It simply
streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in
theory. But he said he is concerned that the administrations broad definition of what affects the ocean including runoff from land could open the door to regulating all inland activities, because all water going downhill goes
into the ocean. ... That potential could be there. The House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on
implementing the policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate. Two influential groups anglers and energy firms have
joined Republicans in questioning the administrations approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy could prohibit U.S.
citizens from fishing some of the nations oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have been labeled an
opinion piece, the editor said later. Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down, said Michael Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose
700 members include the nations major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy
once its final implementation plan is released, after the election. The National Ocean Policy Coalition a group based in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming
and chemical interests has galvanized industry opposition to the policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive
director work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the groups executive director, said that the public has not had enough input into the development of the policy and that
his group worries about the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity. Sarah Cooksey, who is Delawares coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantics regional
planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the books. No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In Southerlands reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman
Ocean Enemy #1 and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses.
Southerland declined to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most ocean policy fights are regional, this is the first issue Ive seen thats become partisan. I
do not think it will be the last.
Maritime funding causes huge fights acrimonious battles with House GOP
Larry Kiern is a partner in Winston & Strawn's Washington, D.C. office who concentrates his practice
in litigation, arbitration, maritime, environmental, legislative, and regulatory matters 2-15-2013
Congress Decides Maritime Issues Amid Fiscal Policy Debate http://www.maritime-
executive.com/magazine/Congress-Decides-Maritime-Issues-Amid-Fiscal-Policy-Debate DA: 6/7/14

Fromthe outset, the newly convened 113th Congress featured threats of a partial government shutdown in order to force more spending cuts. Prominent
House Republican leaders initially asserted that they would refuse toraise the national debt limit and thereby trigger a shutdown and mandatory spending cuts.
They have recently postponed that threat until mid-April. President Obama has asserted he will not bargain at all over the debt limit. Democratic congressional leaders decried the threat of a default as irresponsible. And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called on lawmakers to take
care of their job and raise the debt ceiling, warning that default would damage the economy. Adding fuel to the fire, the President stated that additional tax increases must accompany spending cuts. Rejecting that, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced
simply that there will be no additional tax revenues. So the first months of the new Congress promise to replaythe acrimonious process whereby Congress will eventually accept the inevitable
increase to the nations borrowing authority while trying to cobble together majorities for additional spending cuts and tax increases. As a practical matter, the nation has already reached the limit of its borrowing authority, and another politically contrived crisis looms. Sadly, this
irresponsible political game of chicken only harms the nations economy, including its maritime industry. In the summer of 2011 this same kind of brinksmanship needlessly
stalled the economic recovery and downgraded the nations financial rating. When Congress proves unreadyto make hard decisions, it does what most
legislative bodies do: It postpones them. Thus chronic congressional calls for fiscal responsibility are accompanied by growing debt and deficits. There is a reason why legislators have proven unable to agree on additional
spending cuts and tax hikes: Key constituencies oppose them. Congresss recent decision to approve $60 billion of emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy relief while rejecting the proposal of House Republican budget hawks to pay for it with an across-the-board spending cut of less than
two percent illustrates the challenge. Considering how the 2011 confrontation ended and the way spending cuts have been rhetorically linked to the debt limit increase by Speaker of the House John Boehner, the most likely outcome appears to be something akin to what we have just
witnessed. When push comes to shove, Congress will likely not default on the national debt and the borrowing limit will be raised at the last minute, or even shortly thereafter. Whether or not such a measure will include additional spending cuts or tax increases remains doubtful because that
will require offending core constituencies. So an increase in the debt limit may be accompanied by another face-saving congressional maneuver espousing fiscal responsibility, such as adoption of a budget, while actually producing the opposite effect. Cutting federal spending materially
means assembling majorities that agree to cut specific programs upon which Americans rely. Key Maritime Issues Despite the fiscal cliff controversy, the lame duck session of the 112th Congress decided significant maritime issues. Congress and the President enacted three important laws:
(1) the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2013, (2) the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, and (3) the American Taxpayers Relief Act of 2012. On December 20, President Obama signed the Coast Guard authorization into law. Omitted from the legislation was a House proposal
that would have established a uniform national ballast water standard and prohibited states from setting stricter standards. Repeated House proposals to accomplish this have now failed, and in light of the decision this year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to its
Vessel General Permit to adopt the uniform ballast water standard set forth by the Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organization, it appears this decision is resolved at the federal level. Congress also declined to adopt other
significant proposals. Notably, it failed to use the year-end flurry of legislation to correct its erroneous repeal of an important cargo preference provision inserted in the highway bill last June. As reported in our July/August 2012 column, the repeal hurts
national security while off-shoring the jobs of American seafarers who would otherwise transport U.S. government cargoes. Representatives Jeff Landry (R-LA) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) introduced the Saving Essential American Sailors Act to correct this legislative misstep.
However, despite widespread bipartisan support, it was not included in any of the new legislation passed during the lame duck session.
Link Ocean Policy Federal Water Leases
Federal water leases link confusion over jurisdiction and environmental concerns
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of the Week section. She has a
doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-blue-frontier-ocean-development DA:
6/4/14

The prospect of offshore aquaculture in the deeper federal waters is appealing for many reasons. Currently, the United States imports more than 80 percent of the
seafood it consumes, a seafood deficit that amounts to more than $9 billion annually. And aquaculture is growing rapidly overseas: About half of the seafood imported by the United States
originated in aquaculture farms, not in the wild. That trade imbalance has raised economic and food security concerns. In 2003, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council,
one of the eight regional councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, developed its own plan to lease parcels of federal waters in the Gulf
to large-scale commercial fish farms. The general consensus of the Council was that this was an important area for development for the United States, from the standpoint of seafood supply,
says Joe Hendrix, a member of the Gulf Council and a mariculture consultant in Houston, Texas. Furthermore, he says, it makes sense for the regional councils to manage the industry. This
process will not be the same in the Northwest as the Gulf or New England. Most of the fish species were working with are subtropical salmon farming is not the same as farming red drum.
The Gulf Councils plan became mired in years of public hearings and protests as environmental groups
worried over potential flaws in the plan and challenged the councils authority to lease federal waters . There
were more public hearings than have ever been held for a plan before, Hendrix says. Six years later, in January 2009, the Gulf Council
approved the plan and sent it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval, a necessary step to become law. Meanwhile, lawmakers, including House Natural Resources Committee
Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., urged the secretary to reject the plan, citing both the confusion over proper authority and
environmental concerns. A regional plan, wrote Rep. Rahall in a February 2009 letter to the then-acting commerce secretary, would hardly be able to address how to allot
ocean space to a growing list of industries.

Link Ocean Policy Regulation Streamlining
Deregulation causes controversy federalism issues and environmental concerns
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of the Week section. She has a
doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-blue-frontier-ocean-development DA:
6/4/14

U.S. regulatory fragmentation when it comes to many ocean issues makes the oceans a regulatory orphan, as Florida
State University law professor Robin Kundis Craig wrote in the University of Colorado Law Review in 2008. Throughout the past decade, stakeholders and policymakers alike have increasingly called for more streamlined
government plans for managing ocean-based industries, including offshore aquaculture. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, convened in 2000 by Congress to assess the health of the
oceans, published a report in 2004 that called for the establishment of a national council on ocean policy to coordinate the various agencies work. A similar report published in 2003 by the
Pew Oceans Commission also called for a national oceans council, finding that the confusion over conflicting mandates between agencies made it difficult to regulate environmental concerns such as non-point-source pollution.
Shortly after the U.S. Commissions report, an interdisciplinary group of scientists focused on offshore aquaculture, outlining a policy framework on the subject for NOAA. The group also recommended the creation of a new NOAA
Office of Offshore Aquaculture to oversee leasing, environmental review and monitoring of the fledgling industry. But none of this has happened yet. A pair of 2007 House
and Senate bills to provide authority to the Department of Commerce (the department that includes NOAA) to establish a regulatory system for offshore aquaculture in the
Exclusive Economic Zone didnt even make it out of committee , in part because they lacked sufficient environmental safeguards, Leonard says. They were
widely criticized as fundamentally flawed, he adds. For example, the bills left many environmental mitigation measures up to the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce, rather
than establishing legally binding national standards. Many of us were concerned that that kind of discretion opens the door for putting ocean ecosystems at risk, Leonard says. As with questions of marine
spatial planning in general, different interests still debate whether there should be a national aquaculture policy
and regulation or regional policies. When it comes to fisheries in state waters, regional management has long taken precedence over national policy. NOAAs National Marine Fisheries
Service, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (first enacted in 1976 and later amended in 1996 and 2007), is responsible for managing commercial fishing operations, including regulatory
requirements on permits and size limits. But most of the management decisions and fishing regulations are determined regionally by eight regional fishery management councils, each consisting of various stakeholders related to the
fishing industry, as well as state and federal representatives.
Link Ocean Policy Executive Orders
Ocean XO links GOP opposition to XO process, spending, environmental issues
and states rights
Rebekah Rast Media Outreach Director at Americans for Limited Government Communications
Coordinator for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) at U.S. House of Representatives 10-31-2012 Obamas
environmental policies extend to Americas oceansand into the upcoming elections
http://netrightdaily.com/2012/10/obamas-environmental-policies-extend-to-americas-oceans-and-into-the-
upcoming-elections/ DA: 6/10/14

You can definitely see a partisan line when it comes to environmental policies in this country. One side thinks
many related laws and regulations go too far; the other side thinks many of these laws dont go far
enough. However, it seems this partisan line also stretches past the land of the U.S. and deep into its oceans. In 2010, when President Obama passed his
executive order Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, he claimed it strengthens ocean governance and coordination, establishes guiding principles for ocean management, and adopts a flexible framework for
effective coastal and marine spatial planning to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes. Not everyone agrees with his claim and now this oceans
and lakes power play has sparked quite a partisan fight going into this election year. Many Republicans see this Executive Order as nothing more than an
absurd power grab by the Obama administration. To control the countrys lakes, oceans and coastlands by issuing strict usage regulations and restrictions will only hurt such livelihoods as farming, fishing and logging. Many
Democrats and environmental allies see this as a positive step forward that will protect the nations oceans and also limit the number of conflicts over how the waters are used. The Washington Post cites a recent study where Boston
University biologist Les Kaufman was a contributor. The study shows that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching
operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Kaufman responds to the study saying, The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit
and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Meanwhile, Florida Republican Rep. Steve Southerland II, who is in a tight reelection race, says this ocean policy was like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our
freedoms, as quoted by the Washington Post. Despite its lack of support from many Republican members of Congress, it is the process
by which this policy was put into placethrough Executive Order that is most puzzling and
troublesome to some . In 2007, a similar bill was proposed in Congress, which at that time was controlled by Democrats in both chambers, called OCEANS-21. It would have established a comprehensive
National Oceans Policy, very similar to what the president is working on today. The bill never became law. In spite of having an overwhelming partisan Democrat majority in his first two years in office, Obama chose to
ignore the will of Congress altogether, by mandating the policy into existence with a overly broad use of his powers to
issue an Executive Orderinvolving only a small team of White House staff. As Rep. Southerland compares this ocean policy to a rogue traffic control operation, all would agree that traffic control is a good operation to have.
However, it is not an uncommon practice of government, when it is given a little jurisdiction, to take much more. This is exactly what concerns Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the House
Natural Resources Committee Chairman. The Washington Post summarizes his thoughts as not being opposed to a national ocean policy, per se,
but concerned about the administrations vague and broad definition of what ocean means exactly. If it includes runoff from land in its jurisdiction then it could open the
door to regulating all inland activities, because all water going downhill goes into the ocean That potential could be there, Rep. Hastings said. Out of concern for the thousands of American jobs that rely on Americas Great Lakes
and oceans, the House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing the
policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate. In an interview with Americans for Limited Government (ALG) earlier this year, Jim Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, took Chairman
Hastings comments even farther and said that this ocean policy is nothing more than private property theft. This is a government takeover of every piece of water that drains into the
Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, he says. This is taking states rights away, land rights and personal property rights.
XO ocean policy costs capital even if the issue is popular, GOP opposes the process
Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress, received a masters degree in
marine affairs from the University of Rhode Island in 2005 4-13-2012 Fish on Fridays: Sensible Ocean
Policy Falling Victim to Political Games
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/04/13/11433/fish-on-fridays-sensible-ocean-policy-
falling-victim-to-political-games/ DA: 6/10/14

Even in the bitterest partisan times, ocean issues tend to exist outside the traditional political boxing ring.
They usually foster alliances based far more on geography than on party affiliation. Members who represent coastal states and districts usually recognize the value of sustaining
and investing in our valuable ocean resources, and they prioritize them more than their inland counterparts. But in recent months the escalation of rancor and
polarization encompassed even the normally temperate issue of ocean policy. Nowhere is this tone
more prevalent that in the House Committee on Natural Resources, where Republicans have made President Barack Obamas National Ocean Policy
public enemy number one . Ever since its roll-out, the policyimplemented by an executive order in 2010 to provide a comprehensive set of guiding principles
for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakeshas been taking fire from opponents who cite it as an overreach that would spawn job-killing regulations, according to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and would
mean the death of all land-use planning in this country, in the words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). Leaving aside the inherent contradiction espoused by Rep. McClintockthat the National Ocean Policys nefarious efforts to develop a framework for the great evil of ocean-use
planning would in turn kill the wonderful benefits of land-use planningboiling these statements down to their roots leaves little more than bald
political rhetoric . In practice, the policy will improve scientific management and will help safeguard the commercial and recreational fishing industriessome of the most fundamental drivers of our ocean economy. Rep. Hastings, who chairs the Committee
on Natural Resources, and Rep. McClintock both hail from coastal states, yet neither of the regions they represent in Congress actually touch the Pacific Ocean. Still, the rivers that run through their districts ultimately terminate in the sea, and new findings are provi ng regularly what we
already knewwhat enters those rivers flushes into the ocean and directly affects all facets of marine life, including our fisheries. Rep. Hastings has held multiple hearings about the National Ocean Policy in his committee this year, repeatedly questioning administration officials, scientists,
industry members, and advocates about what he sees as an authoritarian overreach and a prime example of the regulatory stranglehold the Obama administration is putting on Americas economic growth. (In the interest of full disclosure, I testified before Rep. Hastingss Committee on
October 29, 2011.) On April 2 Rep. Hastings sent a letter to his colleagues in the House Appropriations Committeethe holders of the congressional purse stringsasking them to prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy. On the whole, many fishing
industry groups, including the regional fishery management councils tasked with developing fishery management plans, have expressed concern over the policy since its inception because they feared their voices would not be heard during the development of specific policy recommendations.
Since the initial proposal was announced, the administration has taken steps to alleviate those concerns, including formally incorporating the councils in regional planning efforts. Despite these improvements, Rep. Hastings has been joined in his effort to defund the policy by a coalition of
ocean and inland industry groups, including commercial and recreational fishing organizations. In their letter the groups call out potential benefits of a national ocean policy designed to stimulate job creation and economic growth while conserving the natural resources and marine habitat of
our oceans and coastal regions. Then, in the next sentence, they contradict this desire by calling for a pause in implementation of President Obamas ocean policy, which explicitly shares those goals. In this letter Rep. Hastings also says the policy is especially alarming because it
stretches far inland following rivers and their tributaries upstream for hundreds of miles. But of course it stretches upstream! There is no impermeable layer dividing salt water from fresh. This is a fundamental reason why we need the policy in the first place. In fact, the policy is designed
specifically to ensure adequate and efficient coordination between the agencies responsible for inland activities that affect ocean resources and the agencies that oversee the ocean activities themselves. The news this week provided specific examples of why such coordination is necessary.
Pesticide use was found to affect Pacific salmon populations, and ocean acidification was proven to stunt oyster growth. These may seem like obvious conclusions to draw, but they both exemplify the difficulty in differentiating between oceans and lands. Similar to the estuarine boundary
between salt water and fresh (how salty can fresh water be before it becomes seawater?) our jurisdictional boundaries are equally nebulous. President Obama famously (if incorrectly) noted this blurring of the lines during his 2011 State of the Union address when he famously poked fun at the
governments management of salmon. The Interior Department handles salmon when theyre in freshwater, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once theyre smoked, he quipped to polite laughter in the House chamber and
rolling echoes of punditry in the days after the speech. The reality of salmon management is far more sensible. The Commerce Departments National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is actually responsible for salmon species management throughout their range, though the
Department of the Interiors Fish and Wildlife Service does manage some salmon habitat programs. Yet the point remains that what happens upstream in salmon runs can have a dramatic effect on the survival of one of the most valuable fisheries in the country. Thus it makes a great deal of
sense that we should coordinate efforts across federal agencies to manage issues that transcend traditional boundaries. For example: If pesticides make life more difficult for salmon, then the pesticide regulators should be talking to the fisheries biologists to figure out how to minimize that
impact. This is precisely the kind of interagency collaboration the National Ocean Policy is designed to facilitate. Further, Hastingss efforts to defund the policys recommendations not only would prevent government operations from becoming more efficient by collaborating across
traditional agency boundaries but could also have devastating ramifications for the day-to-day programs that improve fishery management and make life better for fishermen. Cutting funding as Rep. Hastings has requested risks eliminating funding for many of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administrations existing programs that fishermen rely on or that could greatly enhance the understanding of what factors other than fishing pressure are causing fish stocks to decline and prevent their rebuilding. Specifically, the National Ocean Policys Draft Implementation
Plan calls for: Sustaining ocean observing systems that provide critical data for fishery stock assessments Conducting research on what stressors (habitat degradation, pollution, global climate change, etc.) affect fish stocks other than fishing mortality Prioritizing a National Shellfish Initiative
to investigate potential ecosystemand economic benefits of shellfish aquaculture Identifying key ecosystem protection areas to enhance the quality of habitat that provides sanctuary and nurseries for the more than half of all fish caught in US waters [that] depend on the estuaries and coastal
wetlands at some point in their life cycles Understanding and combatting hypoxia (lack of oxygen) caused by polluted runoff from rivers and streams that can lead to massive fish kills, harmful algal blooms, and other phenomena that adversely affect fish populations These programs are not
new, and administration officials have been abundantly clear in their testimony before Congress and, in some cases, in the face of withering interrogation, that the National Ocean Poli cy does not create any new regulations for how we use our ocean space. Healthy oceans and coasts are
among the strongest economic drivers and most valuable resources our nation possesses. The National Ocean Policyrecognizes this fact and sets forth a proactive framework to streamline government
involvement, eliminate duplication of effort, and ensure taxpayers get more value for their dollarsexactly what small government Republicans claim they want. Maybe
next time we should get Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to propose it.

AT: Link Turn General
Err neg even previously popular ocean policy costs PC and is controversial GOP
opposition to Obama and environmental issues
Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress, received a masters degree in
marine affairs from the University of Rhode Island in 2005 4-13-2012 Fish on Fridays: Sensible Ocean
Policy Falling Victim to Political Games
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/04/13/11433/fish-on-fridays-sensible-ocean-policy-
falling-victim-to-political-games/ DA: 6/10/14

Even in the bitterest partisan times, ocean issues tend to exist outside the traditional political boxing ring.
They usually foster alliances based far more on geography than on party affiliation. Members who represent coastal states and districts usually recognize the value of sustaining
and investing in our valuable ocean resources, and they prioritize them more than their inland counterparts. But in recent months the escalation of rancor and
polarization encompassed even the normally temperate issue of ocean policy. Nowhere is this tone
more prevalent that in the House Committee on Natural Resources, where Republicans have made President Barack Obamas National Ocean Policy
public enemy number one . Ever since its roll-out, the policyimplemented by an executive order in 2010 to provide a comprehensive set of guiding principles for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great
Lakeshas been taking fire from opponents who cite it as an overreach that would spawn job-killing regulations, according to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and would mean the death of all land-use planning in this country,
in the words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). Leaving aside the inherent contradiction espoused by Rep. McClintockthat the National Ocean Policys nefarious efforts to develop a framework for the great evil of ocean-use planning would in turn kill the wonderful benefits of land-use
planningboiling these statements down to their roots leaves little more than bald political rhetoric . In practice, the policy will
improve scientific management and will help safeguard the commercial and recreational fishing industriessome of the most fundamental drivers of our ocean economy. Rep. Hastings, who chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, and Rep. McClintock both hail from coastal states, yet
neither of the regions they represent in Congress actually touch the Pacific Ocean. Still, the rivers that run through their districts ultimately terminate in the sea, and new findings are proving regularly what we already knewwhat enters those rivers flushes into the ocean and directly affects
all facets of marine life, including our fisheries. Rep. Hastings has held multiple hearings about the National Ocean Policy in his committee this year, repeatedly questioning administration officials, scientists, industry members, and advocates about what he sees as an authoritarian overreach
and a prime example of the regulatory stranglehold the Obama administration is putting on Americas economic growth. (In the interest of full disclosure, I testified before Rep. Hastingss Committee on October 29, 2011.) On April 2 Rep. Hastings sent a letter to his colleagues in the House
Appropriations Committeethe holders of the congressional purse stringsasking them to prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy. On the whole, many fishing industry groups, including the regional fishery management councils tasked with
developing fishery management plans, have expressed concern over the policy since its inception because they feared their voi ces would not be heard during the development of specific policy recommendations. Since the initial proposal was announced, the administration has taken steps to
alleviate those concerns, including formally incorporating the councils in regional planning efforts. Despite these improvements, Rep. Hastings has been joined in his effort to defund the policy by a coalition of ocean and inland industry groups, including commercial and recreational fishing
organizations. In their letter the groups call out potential benefits of a national ocean policy designed to stimulate job creation and economic growth while conserving the natural resources and marine habitat of our oceans and coastal regions. Then, in the next sentence, they contradict this
desire by calling for a pause in implementation of President Obamas ocean policy, which explicitly shares those goals. In this letter Rep. Hastings also says the policy is especially alarming because it stretches far inland following rivers and their tributaries upstream for hundreds of
miles. But of course it stretches upstream! There is no impermeable layer dividing salt water from fresh. This is a fundamental reason why we need the policy in the first place. In fact, the policy is designed specifically to ensure adequate and efficient coordination between the agencies
responsible for inland activities that affect ocean resources and the agencies that oversee the ocean activities themselves. The news this week provided specific examples of why such coordination is necessary. Pesticide use was found to affect Pacifi c salmon populations, and ocean
acidification was proven to stunt oyster growth. These may seemlike obvious conclusions to draw, but they both exemplify the difficulty in differentiating between oceans and lands. Similar to the estuarine boundary between salt water and fresh (how salty can fresh water be before it
becomes seawater?) our jurisdictional boundaries are equally nebulous. President Obama famously (if incorrectly) noted this blurring of the lines during his 2011 State of the Union address when he famously poked fun at the governments management of salmon. The Interior Department
handles salmon when theyre in freshwater, but the Commerce Department handles themin saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once theyre smoked, he quipped to polite laughter in the House chamber and rolling echoes of punditry in the days after the speech. The reality of
salmon management is far more sensible. The Commerce Departments National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is actually responsible for salmon species management throughout their range, though the Department of the Interiors Fish and Wildlife Service does manage some
salmon habitat programs. Yet the point remains that what happens upstream in salmon runs can have a dramatic effect on the survival of one of the most valuable fisheries in the country. Thus it makes a great deal of sense that we should coordinate efforts across federal agencies to manage
issues that transcend traditional boundaries. For example: If pesticides make life more difficult for salmon, then the pesticide regulators should be talking to the fisheries biologists to figure out how to minimize that impact. This is precisely the kind of interagency collaboration the National
Ocean Policy is designed to facilitate. Further, Hastingss efforts to defund the policys recommendations not only would prevent government operations from becoming more efficient by collaborating across traditional agency boundaries but could also have devastating ramifications for the
day-to-day programs that improve fishery management and make life better for fishermen. Cutting funding as Rep. Hastings has requested risks eliminating funding for many of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations existing programs that fishermen rely on or that could
greatly enhance the understanding of what factors other than fishing pressure are causing fish stocks to decline and prevent their rebuil ding. Specifically, the National Ocean Policys Draft Implementation Plan calls for: Sustaining ocean observing systems that provide critical data for fishery
stock assessments Conducting research on what stressors (habitat degradation, pollution, global climate change, etc.) affect fish stocks other than fishing mortality Prioritizing a National Shellfish Initiative to investigate potential ecosystemand economic benefits of shellfish aquaculture
Identifying key ecosystem protection areas to enhance the quality of habitat that provides sanctuary and nurseries for the more than half of all fish caught in US waters [that] depend on the estuaries and coastal wetlands at some point in their life cycles Understanding and combatting
hypoxia (lack of oxygen) caused by polluted runoff from rivers and streams that can lead to massive fish kills, harmful algal blooms, and other phenomena that adversely affect fish populations These programs are not new, and administration officials have been abundantly clear in their
testimony before Congress and, in some cases, in the face of withering interrogation, that the National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations for how we use our ocean space. Healthy oceans and coasts are among the strongest economic drivers and most valuable resources our
nation possesses. The National Ocean Policyrecognizes this fact and sets forth a proactive frameworkto streamline government involvement, eliminate duplication of effort, and ensure taxpayers get more
value for their dollarsexactly what small government Republicans claim they want. Maybe next time we should get Rep. Paul
Ryan (R-WI) to propose it.
And poison pill additions require PC even noncontroversial issues get drawn in
to larger fights recent House action proves
Puneet Kollipara Science, Environmental, Public Policy Journalist 6-4-2014 U.S. House Wants
Limits on Climate, Marine Policy Programs http://oceanleadership.org/u-s-house-wants-limits-climate-
marine-policy-programs/ DA: 6/10/14

In a 321 to 87 vote, the Republican-controlled House on 30 May approved a $51 billion spending bill that would fund the departments of Commerce
and Justice, and an array of other agencies including the National Science Foundation (NSF), in the 2015 fiscal year that begins 1 October. During 2 days of debate on the bill,
House members offered scores of amendments , many proposing to shift funding between programs or cut spending. NSF survived the free-for-all
largely unscathed. But lawmakers adopted several amendments that targeted marine research and climate science programs. The U.S. Senate,
which this week begins work on its version of the spending bill, would have to agree to the amendments in order for them to become law (and in the past has stripped similar provisions from the
legislation). For now, however, these amendments remain in the mix: Representative Bill Flores (RTX) successfully added language barring the president
from enforcing his National Ocean Policy, which has been a partisan football in recent years. The amendment, which is similar to past amendments adopted by
the House but later stripped from final measures, was approved on a voice vote. In a 226 to 179 vote, the House adopted a proposal from Representative Mark Meadows
(RNC) to bar the United States from entering international trade agreements to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions. An
amendment from Representative Scott Perry (RPA), adopted on a voice vote, would bar spending money on a number of government
climate assessments and reports, including the U.S. Global Change Research Programs National Climate Assessment (NCA). The president has used the most recent NCA,
released last month, to bolster his Climate Action Plan to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Several other amendments offered by Democrats to bolster funding for ocean acidification and
climate research failed on voice votes. Advocates for strong action on climate change are hoping the Senate will hold firm against the climate-related
funding restrictions and strip out the poison pills , says Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The
White House has also indicated its opposition to climate research limits.
Development
Link Aquaculture
Aquaculture development contentious definition and jurisdiction controversies
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of the Week section. She has a
doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-blue-frontier-ocean-development DA:
6/4/14

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which defines fishing as harvesting, also applies to offshore aquaculture, Bunsick of NOAA says. That definition has
been an ongoing source of contention : Many environmental groups contend that harvesting fish from offshore farms is
vastly different from fishing and should be subject to different regulatory requirements. Although aquaculture so far is not big business in the United States, deepwater
fish farms could have significantly greater capacity, providing potentially tens of thousands more tons of seafood per year to increasingly health-conscious U.S. consumers. Stakeholders across
the board find that prospect attractive, but despite a growing interest in offshore aquaculture, there is currently no permitting system in place
to lease ocean waters for that purpose in large part because its not clear who should do it. At issue is not just a semantic dispute; tied up in
that definition is who would ultimately manage those offshore aquaculture operations NOAAs National Marine
Fisheries Service (via the regional councils, or not) or some other agency. Multiple agencies have jurisdiction over different aspects of offshore aquaculture
operation: Because inland and nearshore aquaculture falls under the Department of Agriculture, USDA chairs the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, formed in the 1980s after the National
Aquaculture Act passed. The Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to issue permits for offshore aquaculture facilities under the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Environmental Protection
Agency, under the Clean Water Act, issues permits for waste discharge into public waters (which would include waste produced by the fish). And the Food and Drug Administration has
jurisdiction over regulating the sale of fish that have been treated for disease.
Aquaculture links confusion over jurisdiction and environmental concerns
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of the Week section. She has a
doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-blue-frontier-ocean-development DA:
6/4/14

The prospect of offshore aquaculture in the deeper federal waters is appealing for many reasons. Currently, the United States imports more than 80 percent of the
seafood it consumes, a seafood deficit that amounts to more than $9 billion annually. And aquaculture is growing rapidly overseas: About half of the seafood imported by the United States
originated in aquaculture farms, not in the wild. That trade imbalance has raised economic and food security concerns. In 2003, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council,
one of the eight regional councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, developed its own plan to lease parcels of federal waters in the Gulf
to large-scale commercial fish farms. The general consensus of the Council was that this was an important area for development for the United States, from the standpoint of seafood supply,
says Joe Hendrix, a member of the Gulf Council and a mariculture consultant in Houston, Texas. Furthermore, he says, it makes sense for the regional councils to manage the industry. This
process will not be the same in the Northwest as the Gulf or New England. Most of the fish species were working with are subtropical salmon farming is not the same as farming red drum.
The Gulf Councils plan became mired in years of public hearings and protests as environmental groups
worried over potential flaws in the plan and challenged the councils authority to lease federal waters . There
were more public hearings than have ever been held for a plan before, Hendrix says. Six years later, in January 2009, the Gulf Council
approved the plan and sent it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval, a necessary step to become law. Meanwhile, lawmakers, including House Natural Resources Committee
Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., urged the secretary to reject the plan, citing both the confusion over proper authority and
environmental concerns. A regional plan, wrote Rep. Rahall in a February 2009 letter to the then-acting commerce secretary, would hardly be able to address how to allot
ocean space to a growing list of industries.

Link LOST
LOST links Obama pushes and lots of opposition
Joseph Farah Editor-in-chief at World News Daily, formerly six years as executive news editor at the
Los Angeles Herald Examiner 6-10-2012 LOST appears lost for the year
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/lost-appears-lost-for-the-year/?cat_orig=world DA: 6/5/14

While the Obama administration has been pressing hard for passage of the Law of the Sea Treaty, its prospects this year appear
dim, according to a report in Joseph Farahs G2 Bulletin. The U.S. Senate has been trying to pass the treaty since 1994. For those who object to it,
there remain serious security and sovereignty concerns. Also, there is an upcoming presidential election in which Barack Obama will want to avoid
controversy surrounding the treaty as long as those concerns remain. The Senate needs 67 votes to agree to the treaty and even supporters believe there is little
prospect of obtaining that number. Some 162 countries have signed up to the treaty since it was first introduced in 1982. However, President Ronald Reagan
refused then to sign up to the treaty. President Bill Clinton did sign the treaty but even with changes the Senate didnt provide an advise and consent vote on it. Thats because the concerns raised
then by Reagan in refusing to sign the treaty remain. They include the fact that while the treaty would give the United Stat es even greater access to oil, minerals and precious metals found on the
ocean floor beyond the 200-mile territorial limit, the issue of revenue in which the U.S. would have to pay a royalty on the wealth it obtains from deep-sea mining and drilling remains.
Critics of the treaty say that it would create what amounts to an international tax on the U.S. and offers a scheme to redistribute the nations wealth
to the rest of the world without U.S. consent. In effect, it would give the United Nations taxing authority over sovereign countries. Any royalties collected from U.S.
mining would have to go to the United Nations agency International Seabed Authority. Critics say there is no say over where t he money then would go. Reagan at the time was concerned that
monies would go to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The treaty also would force the U.S. to share any deep sea technology that most countries do not now have. It also would
place restrictions on the U.S. Navy by compelling what amounts to an environmental impact statement on the area where it might conduct exercises. This would be
especially difficult if the U.S. Navy is attempting to keep open the shipping lanes for the Strait of Hormuz since its operations would require that prior to their undertaking there must be a
statement on how such exercises will harm the environment where the ships are operating. Also, the treaty would not allow the U.S. Navy to stop and board questionable ships on the high seas,
even if those ships are involved in piracy, slavery, suspect terrorists or transporting weapons of mass destruction.
LOST costs capital GOP and lobby opposition is fierce
Dominic Triney, correspondent for The Atlantic and an associate professor of political science at
Swarthmore College, 6-13-2012 The Rise of UN Derangement Syndrome
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/the-rise-of-un-derangement-syndrome/258454/
DA: 6/5/14

The debate over whether or not Congress should finally ratify the [LOST]Law of the Sea Treaty has triggered a full-blown
outbreak of UN Derangement Syndrome, the primary symptom of which is an overblown fear of international
organizations . The United Nations' Law of the Sea Treatyprovides international rules for protecting the freedom of the seas, establishing national maritime zones, and accessing
deep-sea resources.For the 160 countries that ratified the treaty, including such close U.S. allies as Britain, Germany, Canada, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan, it's a largely
uncontroversial pact that creates order and predictability over maritime issues. In the United States, however, a small but motivated lobby of
unilateralists, exhibiting the symptoms of UN Derangement Syndrome, oppose ratification. The Law of the Sea Treaty is a kind of Rorschach test, in which, if the right
sort of person looks closely enough, one can discern all the evils of the United Nations and international law. A bunch of dictators will ride roughshod over American interests. The United States
will be constrained by weaker powers, like Gulliver pinned down by the Lilliputians. And Obama's real identity as a one-world government socialist will be exposed. Cliff Kincaid, the president
of the group America's Survival, argued, "Our national survival is at stake. Our sovereignty is at risk and in danger. We need your immediate help to avert a catastrophe." This is what Richard
Hofstadter called the "paranoid style in American politics": the fearful suspicions and conspiratorial fantasies found throughout American history, from Salem witches to Communists. Kincaid
warned, "If we don't defeat this treaty, the battle against the New World Order will be lost." Worryingly, UN Derangement Syndrome has infected some
wider elements of American conservatism. Dick Morris argued that a plot to create "one world government" is "happening." Donald Rumsfeld wrote in his
memoirs that the Law of the Sea: "would put all natural resources found in the seabeds of international waters ... into the hands of what was ominously called the International Seabed Authority."
If the Senate ratifies the treaty, Stephen Groves wrote, the U.S. Treasury will be "raided for billions of dollars," which will then be "redistributed to the rest of the world by an international
bureaucracy." Twenty-seven Republican senators signed a letter opposing ratification of the treaty -- just seven votes short of
enough to block passage. They say that the treaty would undermine U.S. "maritime security," redistribute wealth "from developed to
undeveloped nations," create "environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution," and surrender American sovereignty to a "supranational government."

Link Marine Spatial Planning
Marine spatial planning causes massive controversy GOP fear regulations and
future spending
Rob Hotakainen, Washington Correspondent at McClatchy Newspapers 10-4-2011
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/04/126154/congress-spars-over-ocean-zoning.html DA: 6/4/14

House members clashed Tuesday over a White House plan that essentially calls for zoning the oceans, with Republicans charging that it already has
created more job-killing bureaucracy and Democrats saying it could give Americans more certainty on how they can use busy public waters. "It has the potential to stunt economic growth and the
jobs associated with that growth," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the top-ranked Democrat on the panel, likened the idea formally
known as marine spatial planning to making plans for air space. "Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air-traffic control," he said. Hastings, who represents an agricultural district, said he feared
that the ocean-planning process ultimately could lead to new regulations on lands adjacent to rivers and
watersheds that drain into the ocean. "For example," he said, "a farmer working hundreds of miles from the coastline could be at risk of a new layer of regulatory review based on the ocean."
At a committee hearing Tuesday called by Hastings, business groups assailed the proposal , and an official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
accused the White House of trying to promote the plan with little fanfare, even though it could have a big impact. "From my vantage point, the national ocean policy is the most significant issue affecting energy security, job creation
and economic growth that no one has heard about," said Christopher Guith, the chamber's vice president for policy. Urging the White House to back away from the plan, Guith
said the proposal would have a "plethora of impacts on the country" and add "yet another maze of real or de facto regulation for businesses to attempt to navigate." "At a time of anemic economic growth and persistently high
unemployment, the country is looking to its leaders to reverse these trends," Guith said. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said the U.S. must do better planning for its waters to reverse its "current destructive path." He called the current
situation "a bureaucratic mess," noting that more than 140 federal laws and dozens of agencies have jurisdiction over ocean space. "The terrifying fact is ... that our ocean economy is at risk," Farr said. "Just this summer, a growing
83-mile dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay was described by scientists as the worst in history." Hastings said he called the oversight hearing because President Barack Obama acted without congressional approval when he created a
task force to come up with new policies to manage the oceans and the nation's coastlines. And he said the president's new "tangled web of bureaucracy" is sure
to lead to White House requests for more federal spending. "With the stroke of the pen, President Obama created a new, huge, top-down bureaucracy that could
override states and local authorities and change the way activities on the oceans, coasts and far inland will be managed," Hastings said. "The executive order creates 10 national policies, a 27-member national ocean council, an 18-
member governance coordinating committee and nine regional planning bodies." But most alarming, Hastings said, is "the mandatory ocean zoning ordered to be imposed." "Disguised with the label of coastal marine spatial planning,
ocean zoning could place huge sections of the ocean off-limits to activities not zoned as government-approved," Hastings said. He added that the scope of the president's plan "goes well beyond the oceans and includes the
federalization of the Great Lakes, where states could be dictated to by a regional planning body on where certain economic activities are allowed." Barry Rutenberg, chairman-elect of the National Association of Home Builders, said
homebuilders already compete in one of the most highly regulated industries and that the already-battered industry cannot be "weighed down by additional regulatory burdens." He expressed concern
that ocean planning would focus too heavily on climate change. Markey accused opponents of using
"scare tactics" by suggesting the plan would lead to fewer jobs. He said the word "plan" is not a dirty word and that making plans on how to best use ocean space would promote both commerce and comity, in some
cases even allowing development to move more quickly because rules would already be in place.
Marine spatial planning links federalism issues and environmental concerns
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of the Week section. She has a
doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-blue-frontier-ocean-development DA:
6/4/14

U.S. regulatory fragmentation when it comes to many ocean issues makes the oceans a regulatory orphan, as Florida
State University law professor Robin Kundis Craig wrote in the University of Colorado Law Review in 2008. Throughout the past decade, stakeholders and policymakers alike have increasingly called for more streamlined
government plans for managing ocean-based industries, including offshore aquaculture. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, convened in 2000 by Congress to assess the health of the
oceans, published a report in 2004 that called for the establishment of a national council on ocean policy to coordinate the various agencies work. A similar report published in 2003 by the
Pew Oceans Commission also called for a national oceans council, finding that the confusion over conflicting mandates between agencies made it difficult to regulate environmental concerns such as non-point-source pollution.
Shortly after the U.S. Commissions report, an interdisciplinary group of scientists focused on offshore aquaculture, outlining a policy framework on the subject for NOAA. The group also recommended the creation of a new NOAA
Office of Offshore Aquaculture to oversee leasing, environmental review and monitoring of the fledgling industry. But none of this has happened yet. A pair of 2007 House
and Senate bills to provide authority to the Department of Commerce (the department that includes NOAA) to establish a regulatory system for offshore aquaculture in the
Exclusive Economic Zone didnt even make it out of committee , in part because they lacked sufficient environmental safeguards, Leonard says. They were
widely criticized as fundamentally flawed, he adds. For example, the bills left many environmental mitigation measures up to the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce, rather
than establishing legally binding national standards. Many of us were concerned that that kind of discretion opens the door for putting ocean ecosystems at risk, Leonard says. As with questions of marine
spatial planning in general, different interests still debate whether there should be a national aquaculture policy
and regulation or regional policies. When it comes to fisheries in state waters, regional management has long taken precedence over national policy. NOAAs National Marine Fisheries
Service, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (first enacted in 1976 and later amended in 1996 and 2007), is responsible for managing commercial fishing operations, including regulatory
requirements on permits and size limits. But most of the management decisions and fishing regulations are determined regionally by eight regional fishery management councils, each consisting of various stakeholders related to the
fishing industry, as well as state and federal representatives.
Ocean zoning cause controversy GOP House opposition
Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations,
December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-
dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14

Marine Protected Areas/Marine Zoning. Here there is good news. Keep in mind, marine protected areas can be a useful tool where there's a demonstrated need
and good science is applied. Likewise, marine spatial planning could be helpful in the future to resolve space use conflicts between competing ocean uses. However, our concern has been with
the misuse of the former and the unknown application of the latter. It has been extremely difficult to bring any rationality into the debate on
the application and siting of marine protected areas. Instead they've become a cash cow for environmental groups, pocketing massive amounts of foundation grants to fund their campaigns,
whether or not there is any need or the science to justify such closures. Some green groups have begun sounding like salesmen for monster pick-ups or Internet shills for male enhancement pills -
- "bigger is better." Then there have been the academics sniffing-out grants from writing or testifying about the benefits of marine reserves -- whether or not the science is credible. Follow that up
with politicians and bureaucrats falling in line to promote marine reserves to get their League of Conservation Voters green points -- either trying for a perfect score or to avoid a goose egg -- and
you can kiss off any kind of measured, rational discussion. The announcement then (see below) that new national monuments would be carefully
scrutinized by the new Congress is welcome. This should help to slow the process down. The one downside is that the new House is less
likely to want to tackle pollution and water quality issues that have to be addressed -- not just fishing -- to make an effective marine protected area. Indeed, many of the already designated areas
protect little, they're merely no fishing zones, sort of like Maginot Lines in the sea readily penetrated by pollution and oil spills. But then we haven't seen much from politicians or bureaucrats, to
date, at either the federal or state level with the backbone to address water quality issues affecting MPAs. So what's the difference here? The new House leadership will
also likely slow down the rush to "marine spatial planning." A two-year slow down to allow for a more thoughtful, consensus driven, marine zoning
policy to evolve would be welcome. The way we'd envision this happening is that implementation of spatial planning getting held up in the House Resources
Committee could then lead to off-the-Hill discussions among the various interest groups (fishing, conservation, maritime) to forge an acceptable policy. In the House
there is, or should be, concern from the fishing industry about the leadership's closeness with Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Development,
Big Pharma and Big Insurance. On the other hand, they don't owe Big Green anything.

Link National Endowment for the Oceans
National Endowment for the Oceans drains capital causes partisan fighting and
spills over to other legislation
David Helvarg, award winning environmental journalist and Executive Director of Blue Frontier, 2-14-
2014 http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361-the-oceans-demand-our-
attention DA: 6/4/14

The latest battle over the future of Americas ocean frontier is being fought out in a seemingly unrelated bill in Congress .
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently introduced his National Endowment for the Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to work on dams, dredging and flood control. The Endowment would establish a permanent fund based on offshore energy revenue for scientific
research and coastal restoration. On the House side Tea Party Republican Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel out any
funding that might allow the Army Corps to participate in the Obama administrations National Ocean Policy, which he claims would empower the EPA to control the property of his drought-plagued constituents should any
rain (generated by the ocean) land on their rooftops. One rider represents a constructive addition and the other a paranoid partisan impediment to an ocean
policy aimed at coordinating federal agencies in ways that could reduce conflict, redundancy and government waste, putting urban planning in the water column, in the words of former Commandant of the Coast Guard
Admiral Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil blow out understands the importance of working together when responding to a disaster. And like it or not, overfishing,
pollution, coastal sprawl and climate change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas. Unfortunately progress towards a major reorganization of how we as a nation manage and
benefit from our ocean continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail). In 2004
ocean conservationists held their first Blue Vision Summit in Washington D.C. It was there Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) called for a Big Ocean Bill, to incorporate many of the recommendations of the 2003 Pew Oceans Commission
and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first blue ribbon panels to examine the state of Americas blue frontier in over three decades. During his presidency, George W. Bush established major marine reserves in the Pacific,
but otherwise ignored his own federal commissions recommendations along with those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now retired), Leon Panetta. As a result Americas seas continue to be poorly managed
by 24 different federal agencies taking a piecemeal approach to their oversight under 144 separate laws. In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There,
he offered her the job of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions recommendations that he agreed to do. By the time of
the 2009 Blue Vision Summit it was clear Congress had become too polarized to pass major ocean reform legislation at the level of the Clean Air and
Clean Water Acts of the last century. Still, activists gathered there were thrilled to hear the new White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy initiative by the
Obama administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next year held in different parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent of public
comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses.
National Endowment for the Oceans cause controversy ideological divide and
knee-jerk hostility only new evidence assumes the gridlocked Congress
Tom Allen is the president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers and a board member of
the Ocean Conservancy. He represented Maines 1st District in Congress for six terms. , 12-4-2013
Challenges of a Changing Ocean: Can Congress Act in Time? | Commentary
http://www.rollcall.com/news/challenges_of_a_changing_ocean_can_congress_act_in_time_commentary
-229390-1.html?pg=1 DA: 6/6/14

In a Congress marred by gridlock and partisan brinkmanship , a surprising opportunity has emerged to
strengthen our nations ocean and coastal communities, businesses and environment. Congress should seize the moment and establish the long-recommended National Endowment for the Oceans,
Coasts and Great Lakes. Unless Congress acts now, the opportunity will slip away. The House and Senate Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) bills currently in conference contain competing provisions with competing
visions for the future of ocean and coastal management in America. This legislative conflict is part of our countrys broader ideological struggle, but
with this difference: On the ocean, no state government, chamber of commerce or environmental group can exercise coordinated and
effective leadership alone. The Senate-passed WRDA bill includes an amendment from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that provides for a National
Endowment for the Oceans that passed with strong bipartisan support. The endowment would authorize grants to universities, states and local organizations for ocean research, mapping, monitoring,
conservation and restoration projects work that is critical to coastal economies that rely on a healthy ocean with well-managed resources. It reflects the belief that the federal
government has an important role to play in strengthening coastal communities, helping ocean-dependent businesses and improving the health of our ocean environment. By
contrast, the WRDA bill passed by the House of Representatives includes an amendment from Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would undermine our National Ocean Policy, smart ocean planning and
ecosystem approaches to ocean resource management. In an era when we need government to work better, smarter, and more effectively, the National Ocean Policy and smart ocean planning are just common sense.
They allow the local, state, tribal and federal entities responsible for ocean management to work across jurisdictional boundaries and proactively tackle challenges in a forward-looking way. To take those tools away would be bad for
ocean health, bad for the ocean economy and bad for coastal communities. This legislative head-to-head dispute reflects the broader ideological
struggle that haunts the halls of Congress today. Its between those who believe that the government can be
a vehicle to serve the common good and those who believe that nearly all government action restricts
personal freedom. We have for too long taken the ocean for granted. Its immense size and apparent resilience fooled us into thinking that humans could draw on it for limitless protein and use it as a garbage
dump. But now the ocean and our coastal communities face serious challenges. Coral reefs are in steep decline. Many fisheries continue to struggle. Water quality problems and toxic algae blooms threaten beaches and clam diggers.
Ocean acidification is worsening each year, threatening multigeneration family-owned shellfish farms. Trash litters the open ocean, occasionally exacerbated by tragic events such as the Japanese tsunami. And sea level rise is just over
the horizon. The WRDA conferees and Congress should choose thoughtful long-term engagement to protect and enhance ocean quality over the all-too-common knee-jerk hostility
toward any new government initiative. Ironically, ocean issues didnt generate such partisan conflict until
recently. As a founding member of the bipartisan House Oceans Caucus, I can say that working across the aisle on ocean issues used to be far more commonplace.
For example, the idea of a permanent ocean endowment was proposed back in 2004 by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy a commission appointed entirely by President George W. Bush. When the commission first floated the
idea of an ocean trust fund in a draft report and asked governors for comment, support was overwhelming and bipartisan. Of the 20 coastal governors who submitted comments on an ocean trust fund, 19 supported the idea six
Democrats and 13 Republicans. Only one Democratic governor expressed any opposition.

Link National Ocean Policy (NOP)
NOP causes massive controversy riders and opposition
Emily Woglom is Vice President, Conservation Policy and Programs, for Ocean Conservancy,
previously Office of Management and Budget, Masters Degree from the Nicholas School of the
Environment at Duke. 11-15-2013 http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/11/15/the-most-important-
congressional-action-on-the-ocean-youve-never-heard-of/ DA: 6/4/14

Right now, Congress has a major opportunity to protect our ocean and coasts. It can create a National Endowment for the Oceans and safeguard the existing National Ocean Policy in one fell swoop. How? Well, its a tale of two bills.
The House and the Senate both recently passed versions of a bill called the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), but their versions are different. The Senate version would establish a National Endowment for the Oceans (NEO), which would expand scientific research, provide
planning and resource management, restore habitat and much more. Conversely, the House version not only fails to establish this endowment, it guts the existing National Ocean Policy (NOP) that ensures smart use of ocean resources.
Soon, a committee made up of members of Congress from both chambers will come together in a conference to combine the two bills into a single final version. The ocean will either get a big win or suffer a big loss. Whats at stake? Following the recommendations of the bipartisan U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, NEO would invest in our oceans future. The endowment authorizes grants to state, regional and tribal entities as well as academic institutions and nonprofit organizations to support ocean and Great Lakes research and restoration projects such as: Restoration of
wetlands, coral reefs, sea grass beds and watersheds Mapping, monitoring, observation and modeling of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes systems Adaptation to the impacts of climate change and mitigation of coastal hazards, including infrastructure protection Research and monitoring of
ocean acidification, hypoxia and harmful algal blooms Conservation of sensitive marine, coastal and Great Lakes species and their habitats Baseline data collection, ecosystemassessments and mapping for use in planning for new sustainable ocean uses and protecting ecosystem health
Planning for sustainable coastal development To put the importance of this work into perspective, consider that scientists estimate that weve explored less than 5 percent of the ocean, that 91 percent of ocean species remain undiscovered, and that we have better maps of the surface of Mars
than we do of the United States territorial ocean waters. Moreover, NEOs investments would create jobs and support coastal economies. They would also ensure that present and future generations benefit from the ecological, economic, educational, social, cultural, spiritual, nutritional and
recreational resources of our ocean, coasts and Great Lakes. Then, theres the NOP. When it comes to making decisions that impact our ocean, every tool should be on the table for gathering and sharing information. The NOP is one of those vital, common-sense tools. It allows the entities
responsible for ocean use planning to coordinate with each other, increasing efficiency and reducing redundancy. The NOP also pushes ocean and coastal management out to the regional level, putting ocean management decisions in the hands of on-the-ground people and businesses that will
be impacted by ocean management decisions. In the words of Sen. Edward Markey, opposing the National Ocean Policy is like opposing air traffic control. Attacks on the NOP have ranged from
hyperbolic to hysterical , with the latest one coming in the form of an amendment to WRDA offered byRep. Bill
Flores, who is not froma coastal district. The Flores rider attempts to blockfull implementation of the NOP. It would prohibit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a key coastal
and ocean management agency, from coordinating with coastal states, other federal agencies and the public as they engage in smart ocean planning.
Link Ocean Nuclear Waste Disposal
Ocean nuclear waste disposal links huge controversy
John Robert Emshwiller is a senior national correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. In 2002, he
shared the Gerald Loeb Award for his coverage of the unfolding Enron scandal, 12-31-2013 Nuclear
Waste Sits on Ocean Floor
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304773104579268563658319196 DA: 6/8/14

More than four decades after the U.S. halted a controversial ocean dumpingprogram, the country is facing a mostly forgotten Cold War legacy in its waters: tens of thousands of steel drums of atomic waste.
From 1946 to 1970, federal records show, 55-gallon drums and other containers of nuclear waste were pitched into the Atlantic and Pacific at dozens of sites off California, Massachusetts and a handful of other states. Much of the trash came from government-related work, ranging from
mildly contaminated lab coats to waste from the country's effort to build nuclear weapons. Federal officials have long maintained that, despite some leakage from containers, there isn't evidence of damage to the wider ocean environment or threats to public health through contamination of
seafood. But a Wall Street Journal review of decades of federal and other records found unanswered questions about a dumping program once labeled "seriously substandard" by a senior Environmental Protection Agency official: How many dump sites are there? Over the years, federal
estimates have ranged from 29 to more than 60. How much of various types of radioisotopes are in the waste containers? Whil e some isotopes are short-lived, others remain radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years. Has evidence of radioactive contamination in fish been adequately
pursued? A 1983 California law calling for fish testing and annual reports on a major dump site off San Francisco produced just one state report, in 1991, even though that study found fish contamination and recommended follow-up research. Where are all the containerswhose numbers
top 110,000, by one federal counton the sea floor, even at known dump sites? For instance, an estimated 47,000 containers lie at the site near San Francisco. Though there were three designated dump areas for the containers, "many were not dropped on target," according to a 2010 report
fromthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which called the waste site a "potentially significant resource threat." Much of the siteabout 50 miles west of San Francisco, near the Farallon Islandsis within a national marine sanctuary that the federal government describes
as "a globally significant" ecosystem "that supports abundant wildlife and valuable fisheries." Only about 15% of an estimated 540 square miles of sea floor containing the barrels, at depths from300 to over 6,000 feet, has been evaluated, the NOAA report said. In a recent response to
questions, NOAA said it wants to further study the dump site but lacks the funds. Representatives of federal agencies recently contacted reiterated that the evidence collected over the years shows that the dump sites aren't posing any threat to the environment or the public. Concerned about
the Farallon site, the California legislature passed the 1983 law calling for fish sampling in the area, where commercial fishing occurs. A spokeswoman for the California Department of Public Health said the law only required reports as funds were available, and they haven't been since 1991.
Plus, she said, researchers "didn't find anything in the first survey." "I would beg to differ," Thomas Suchanek, the principal investigator and lead author of the 1991 study, said recently. The study found americium, a radioactive decay product of plutonium, in some fish samples from the site
as well as a comparison area about 60 miles away. The report calculated that plutonium in underwater sediment at the dump sit e was up to about 1,000 times normal background levels. Regularly eating such contaminated fish, about a pound a week, could expose a person to up to 18.5
millirems of additional radiation a year, the report said. A chest X-ray typically gives about 2 to 10 millirems, while the average American gets about 300 millirems a year from natural background radiation. While an occasional meal of such fish wouldn't be a worry, "I wouldn't want to eat it
as a steady diet," said Dr. Suchanek. Current scientific thinking holds that even small doses of additional radiation can over time raise cancer risk by a small amount. The California health department, in a written response to questions from the Journal, said continued monitoring of the dump
should be a federal responsibility. The agency also provided a 1990 document froma now-defunct state advisory board saying the fish tested "do not appear to have a significant level of radioactivity." A 2001 federal study of part of the Farallon dump site found indications of leakage from
barrels, but only "very low levels" of radioactive contamination in sediment samples. The Food and Drug Administration said that in 1990 it found traces of plutonium in fish samples from the site but at levels well within safety standards. Questions about the sites stem partly fromthe
government's approach to discarding the waste. Early on, waste drums were simply "taken out to a convenient location and put overboard," said a 1956 report fromthe now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission. "Little administrative or technical control of those operations was required or
exercised." Estimates of the radioactivity amounts in the containers "could be off as much as a factor of 10," the document said, adding "little is known of the fate of radioisotopes added to the sea." Commercial fishermen have at times hauled up waste containers from various parts of
Massachusetts Bay, home to a dump site. Frank Mirarchi, a 70-year-old retired commercial fisherman, said his catches occasionally included nuclear junk containers. After one such discovery, Mr. Mirarchi said government officials checked himand his crew for radiation but didn't find
problems. Early government survey efforts had difficulty finding the dumps. One 1980 report by an EPA official noted that in 11,000 underwater photos taken in the early 1960s during dump surveys in the Atlantic and Pacific, no photo captured a single waste drum. Years after it started, the
federal government began having second thoughts about the ocean dumping, as did other countries over their own programs. A 1970 report fromthe federal Council on Environmental Quality recommended no further ocean dumping except as a last resort. That same year, ocean dumping off
the U.S. coasts effectively ended. (In the 1990s, the U.S. signed on to an international compact banning the practice.) Government and public interest in the fate of that offshore waste
has waxed and waned over the decades. Perhaps the biggest flare-up came in the late 1970s and early 1980s amid talk dumping
might resume in the U.S. Environmentalists andsome elected officials jumped into action. A leading voice of alarm was W. Jackson Davis, a now-retired
professor of biological and environmental sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who argued in papers and hearings that evidence showed environmental damage and health threats were already
arisingat the dump sites. In a recent interview, Mr. Davis recalled that the more he learned about the subject, "the more appalled I became."
Disaster Relief
Link Disaster Relief General
Disaster relief links- strong opposition to more funding
Raymond Hernandez, NYT contributor, Cuomo to Seek $30 Billion in Aid for Storm Relief, NYT,
11-12-2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/nyregion/cuomo-to-seek-30-billion-in-aid-for-storm-
relief.html?_r=0, DA: 6/7/14

Mr. Cuomos request could be seen as a challenge to Mr. Obama to make good on his pledge, delivered during a high-profile visit to New Jersey,
to provide federal support for the recovery effort. But it also could be seen as a test of the governors ability to extract billions of
dollars of aid from Washington at a difficult time , with White House officials and Congressional leaders
searching to find areas of government to cut to avert a Jan. 1 fiscal crisis. It is far from certain whether Mr. Cuomo will get what he is
looking for despite the presidents reassurances. The amount the governor is apparently seeking would exceed the roughly $12 billion in FEMA
disaster aid currently available in Washington without action from Congress, where there is likely to be strong opposition to
more spending. Mr. Cuomos plan, which is still being drafted by his aides, rests in part on persuading the federal government to make an
emergency appropriation in the coming weeks during a lame-duck session of Congress that begins on Tuesday. New York will not be alone in
seeking disaster relief from Washington. Members of Congress in both major parties from other storm-ravaged states including New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia will almost certainly be seeking federal assistance for their
constituents.
Disaster relief causes controversy -
BAS News 11-12-2012New York to request $30 billion in additional disaster aid
http://www.knickledger.com/2012/11/new-york-to-request-30-billion-in-additional-disaster-aid/ DA:
6/7/14

Faced with a staggering recovery from Hurricane Sandy, New York State is formulating a request for up to $30 billion in additional aid from the
federal government. The New York Times reports that Governor Andrew M. Cuomos request will be separate from the $12 billion in aid already
available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and includes the costs of rehabilitating infrastructure damaged or destroyed during
the storm as well as the economic impact of long-lasting business closures. Because the additional $30 billion is not already
appropriated, the funding must be approved by Congress. However, the Republican-led House of Representatives
has consistently sought to reduce federal spending and Cuomos request may face opposition by
Republican budget hawks committed to austerity. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner is currently locked in negotiations
with President Barack Obama over measures to raise revenue and trim federal budgets to avoid an automatic $1 trillion in cuts and the repeal of
the Bush tax cuts on January 1,2013. While Obama appears to have a stronger position in these negotiations following his election day victory,
Cuomos request will increase pressure on Obama and Congress to deliver additional funding. Other states along the Atlantic coast affected by
Hurricane Sandy may also make requests for additional funding from Congress as well. Representatives from storm-ravaged districts will likely
push for additional aid, and while this may make House leadership more amendable to providing relief funding, it will likely
complicate budgetary decisions on the mix of tax increases and budget cuts enacted to avoid the fiscal cliff.

Link Disaster Relief Fish
Disaster relief costs PC no majority of supporters
Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations,
December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-
dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14

Disaster Relief. The chances of fishermen getting any disaster relief for this year -- whether they're from New England,
the Pacific salmon fleet, or fishing the Yukon River -- are not good . The State of Massachusetts has recently asked for $40
million to help out their beleaguered fleet, and Pacific salmon fishermen are still hurting from a small 2010 season with few fish from the central Oregon coast
extending south all along California. Traditional champions for fishermen -- from former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Barney Frank, Frank Pallone and
Mike Thompson -- are now in the minority.

Link Debris Clean-Up
Debris clean-up costs PC Obama pushes, spending causes intense opposition and
pushes off other agenda items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation, environmental, and legislative
issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy
administrator of the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also former
majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 6-18-2013 United States:
The Budget Outlook For Maritime Programs For FY2014
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budget+Outlook+for+Maritime+
Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14

The President's budget request for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, was delivered late this year. The President's budget arrived in
Congress in the midst of two very different views of the budget passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions.
These resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail
projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March 23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the
budget. Prior to the release of his budget request, in the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent [infrastructure]
repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The
President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas, including ports, to spur job
growth and enhance our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime Administration ("MARAD"), the President has
requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the Maritime Security Program; $81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25
million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on
U.S. flag ships from 75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The President's budget continues to zero out
funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference cuts. (See H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-
MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has requested a total of $9.79 billion, or 5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets,
including funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the
POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the
President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated National Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for
consolidating the grants into one block grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation is passed this year. For NOAA, the President
has requested a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the National Ocean Service, of
which the Marine Debris Program has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of $2.186 million for
the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and an increase of $21 million to support an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's oceanographic
research fleet. Summary The House and Senate are currently holding a series of hearings featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests. The House of Representatives is likely
to pass appropriation bills that are vastly different from the White House's request. In fact, Members of the House Appropriations Committee, such
as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee, have already questioned whether full funding can be provided
for the Commerce/NOAA budgets. It also remains to be seen whether Congress can revert to regular order, i.e., by passing the
individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has a desire to return to regular order, but this
is not likely to happen in the near term except for defense agencies where bipartisan agreement is more likely to be reached. The government keeps
limping along with cuts from sequester, delays in Congressional approval for spending plans, and
uncertainties in the outcome for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are delayed. The House and Senate
will once again have to debate their respective visions for the 2014 budget and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the
debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a fight over offsetting budget cuts. Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the debt
ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
Debris clean-up controversial funding concerns, not enough people affected
Annie Feidt is the Editor and Producer of Alaska News Nightly, and is also a frequent contributor to
Alaska Public Radio1-30-2013 Tsunami Debris Problem Gets Worse in Alaska, with Little Clean Up
Funding In Sight http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/01/30/tsunami-debris-problem-gets-worse-in-
alaska-with-little-clean-up-funding-in-sight/ DA: 6/8/14

Marine debris is not a new problem in Alaska. But the Japanese tsunami magnified the problem. Pallister says the tsunami debris doesnt have the visceral impact of
the Exxon Valdez spill, with oiled animals and blackened coastlines. But he thinks in the long run, it could be a bigger environmental disaster: In a lot of ways its a lot worse than the oil spill.
Both in the geographic scope of it and the chemicals that are coming with it. And who knows what the impacts are going to be?, Pallister said. Officially, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has recorded just five tsunami debris items in Alaska. But the agency will only confirm an object if it has a unique identifier that can be traced back to Japan. The state of Alaska
does not use the same strict standard. Last summer the state paid for an aerial survey to inspect 2,500 miles of Alaskas coastline. Elaine Busse Floyd is acting director of the division of
environmental health. She says the survey identified tsunami debris all along the flight path from southern Southeast, up to Prince William Sound and out the Alaska Peninsula: There was
tsunami debris literally on every beach that was photographed. They took over 8,000 pictures and it was more widespread and in greater quantities than we even expected, she said. But so
far there has been minimal funding for cleaning up the debris. Governor Sean Parnell didnt included any tsunami debris funding in his budget. NOAA is
figuring out how to distribute a $5 million gift from Japan for cleaning up the debris. And Alaskas Congressional delegation is working to get
federal funds. But tsunami debris clean up money was stripped from a bill for Hurricane Sandy relief that passed this week.
Back on the beach, as the waves crash in, Chris Pallister says the debris could have serious impacts on fisheries and subsistence resources. I dont know if its being taken seriously enough. I
dont think a lot of people who are going to be impacted by it know how bad it is right now. And until that gets out, maybe
not much is going to happen , he said. Pallister guesses it will take tens, or even hundreds of millions of dollars to remove the
tsunami debris in Alaska. On this day though, he has to leave all the trash on Montague Island behind. We take off in the helicopter and head north along the beach. Pallister looks out the window
at all the debris below and says, it just goes on and on and on.

Link Seach and Rescue General
Search and rescue funding causes controversy seen as pork-barrel spending and
opposition in Congress to environmental issues
Colin Woodard, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor 5-2-2007 US ocean observatories
imperiled by 'earmark' crackdown http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p02s01-uspo.html DA: 6/10/14

For the past six years, a network of high-tech buoys and radar stations have been providing a rich stream of data about conditions in the Gulf of Maine to fishermen,
mariners, scientists, and search and rescue personnel. It's a prototype for a national system that could help with ocean management and save the
lives of mariners. But the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMoos) and others like it across the country may not be able to save
themselves. Their federal funding is ending, in part because of congressional reforms that have clamped down on pork-barrel
spending . What makes the $4 million-a-year GoMoos stand out is that unlike many projects funded through a questionable process known as earmarks think Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" it enjoys wide support in
and out of Congress and forms a part of the federal government's official ocean policy. "GoMoos has really been a groundbreaking model for the whole country," says Rick Wahle of the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in
Boothbay Harbor, Maine. "And now the plug may be being pulled." Monitoring America's oceans The Portland-based network was supposed to serve as the prototype of an integrated national system of ocean-monitoring stations that
would gather and process oceanographic information and release it free of charge to the public, much as the National Weather Service does with atmosphere data. Ten other regional ocean observing systems have been established
across the United States and are in varying degrees of development. Gathering such information is seen as a crucial step toward better managing the nation's oceans, which extend up to 200 miles offshore. For example: Many of the
nation's fisheries have been fished into near oblivion, their recovery undermined by the deterioration of wetlands, coral reefs, and estuaries that many species rely on. There' s expert consensus that ocean politics should be revamped to
take into account how marine ecosystems work and that a national ocean-observing system is needed to collect the data that scientists require to properly understand the system. The establishment of such a national system was one of
the key 2004 recommendations of the US Commission on Ocean Policy, a body appointed by President Bush. The official report urged Congress to commit $650 million annually to build and maintain the system, which it said would
have "invaluable economic, societal, and environmental benefits." One of those benefits has been improved search and rescue. "We're often trying to predict where survivors will have
drifted over the time it takes for us to get to them, so we rely on predictive models of wind and currents," says Art Allen of the Coast Guard's search and rescue headquarters in Washington, D.C. "These systems
allow our controllers to get the best available data at a push of a button, increasing the precision of our analysis and getting us there faster." Fishermen use data on deep-water temperatures and the abundance of microscopic floating
plants to figure out where fish might be, while many of Maine's recreational boaters have grown accustomed to getting detailed information on offshore wind and seas. Scientists are also keenly interested in the data to figure out how
to harvest marine life without destroying the ocean's ability to produce it. "These buoys are unique in that they collect temperature and current information not just at the surface, but at various intervals of depth," says Dr. Wahle, who
studies the lobsters that support Maine's signature fishery. "With bottom-dwelling creatures like lobsters, it's far more important to know what's going on deep beneath the ocean." Funding problems Now, GoMoos may be forced to
shut down. "We may be pulling out some of our buoys, or we may be pulling all of them," says Tom Shyka, GoMoos' chief operating officer. "We're working on other funding opportunities to avoid that, but we're definitely in a
period of uncertainty." Other ocean-observing networks are facing the same squeeze . "We do not have enough money to sustain the system in the long term," says
Madilyn Fletcher, director of The Carolinas Coastal Ocean Observing and Prediction System in Columbia, S.C., which has deferred maintenance on its buoys and may pull them if funds cannot be secured. The root
problem: Congress never passed legislation to fund the system. In recent years, the Senate twice passed bills that would have formally established and
fund the national system. House versions never came to the floor for a vote, according to congressional sources from both parties, because of the
opposition of then- Rep. Richard Pombo (R) of California. As chair of the powerful natural resources committee, he often opposed spending on environmental issues . As a result, the
ocean-observing systems relied on congressional earmarks to cover most of their operations, but these were stripped from this year' s budget. "Given the scandalous results of the earmark process in recent years, something needed to be
done," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, which opposes earmarks. "It's an inequitable and noncompetitive way to
allocate funds. It's difficult to separate what is worthwhile from what might not be."
Link Search and Rescue - MH370
Navy MH370 search causes controversy most expensive search ever
The Rakyat Post, 4-18-2014 http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2014/04/18/mh370-search-cost-
will-be-huge/ DA: 6/12/14

The search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 is set to be the most expensive in aviation history , analysts say, as
efforts to find the aircraft deep under the Indian Ocean show no signs of slowing. The Boeing 777 vanished on March 8 with 239 people on board, after veering dramatically off course en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and is
believed to have crashed in the sea off Australia. Australia, which is leading the search in a remote patch of water described as unknown to man, has not put a figure on spending, but Malaysia has warned that costs will
be huge. When we look at salvaging (wreckage) at a depth of 4.5km, no military out there has the capacity to do it, AFP quoted Transport and Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein yesterday. We have to look
at contractors and the cost of that will be huge. Ravikumar Madavaram, an aviation expert at Frost & Sullivan Asia Pacific, said Malaysia, Australia and China, which had the most nationals onboard the flight, were the biggest
spenders and estimated the total cost up to now at about US$100 million (RM324 million). Its difficult to say how much the cost of this operation is but, yes, this is definitely the biggest operation ever (in aviation history). In
terms of costs this will be the highest. In the first month of the search, in which the South China Sea and Malacca Strait were also scoured by the US, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam, the Pentagon said the US military had
committed US$7.3 million to efforts to find the plane. Meanwhile, the Indian Ocean search, in which assets have also been deployed by Australia, Britain, China, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand, has failed to find anything
conclusive. Hopes rest on a torpedo-shaped US Navy submersible, which is searching the ocean floor at depths of more than 4,500m in the vicinity of where four signals believed to have come
from black box recorders were detected. David Gleave, an aviation safety researcher at Britains Loughborough University, said the costs will be in the order of a hundred
million dollars by the time were finished, if we have found it (the plane) now. But he said the longer it took to find any wreckage, the more costs would mount
because scanning the vast ocean floor will take a lot of money because you can only search about 50sq km a day. Salvaging anything would also depend on how deep the ocean is at the crash point and how dispersed the wreckage,
with weather and politics also complicating factors, he said. The fate of MH370 has drawn parallels with the hunt for Air France Flight447 which plunged into the Atlantic in 2009. The two-year operation to recover its black box,
which involved assets from France, Brazil and the US, has been estimated to have cost 80-100 million euros, according to figures cited by Frances Investigation and Analysis Bureau (BEA). Australias Joint Agency Coordination
Centre says its main focus is still on finding flight MH370. It is one of the most difficult searches ever undertaken and could take some time, JACC said in a statement.. The cost of the search is significant. The exact figure has not
yet been calculated. The cost is being shared by our international partners who have contributed their people and military and civilian assets to help with the search. As the search continues, all international partners are meeting
their own costs. But governments and militaries will need to consider the broader cost implications of the search down the track, said Kym Bergmann, editor of Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter. I dont think that the Australians will
be getting any change at all out of A$1 million a day. Bergman said it would likely be the most expensive aviation search given how long it had already dragged on. It must be starting to worry military planners, he said, adding that
any decision to scale back would cause heartache to the families involved. Madavaram, who is based in Malaysia, agreed, saying at present it was still politically insensitive to cut spending. I think they will
continue one or two months irrespective of the costs, he said. But then if nothing is found, it will become a
wild goose chase, and people will start questioning it .
Opposition to more MH370 searching funding crack-downs
Matt Siegel, Senior Political and General News Correspondent for Thomson Reuters based in Australia.
4-30-2014
United States the first country to scale back its spending on costly Flight MH370 search, source says
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/30/united-states-the-first-country-to-scale-back-its-spending-on-
costly-flight-mh370-search-source-says/ DA: 6/16/14

With the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 entering a new, much longer phase, the countries involved must
decide how much they are prepared to spend on the operation and what they stand to lose if they hold back. The search is already set to be the most
costly in aviation history and spending will rise significantly as underwater drones focus on a larger
area of the seabed that Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Monday could take six to eight months to search. But despite U.S. President Barack Obama publicly
promising to commit more assets, the United S tates appears keen to begin passing on the costs of providing
sophisticated sonar equipment that will form the backbone of the expanded hunt. That means Australia, China and Malaysia the countries most closely involved in the operation look set to
bear the financial and logistical burden of a potentially lengthy and expensive search. Were already at tens of millions. Is it worth hundreds of
millions? a senior U.S. defence official asked last week. I dont know. Thats for them to decide. He made it clear that Washington was
intent on spending less from now on , making it the first major donor country to scale back its financial commitment to the search. Were not
going to pay to perpetually use the equipment on an indefinite basis. Basically from here on out starting next week or so they need to pick up the
contract, he said. At least $44 million was spent on the deployment of military ships and aircraft in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea in the first month of the search, about the same as was
spent on the whole underwater search for Air Frances Flight AF447, which crashed into the Mid-Atlantic in 2009. The Malaysian jetliner carrying 239 people disappeared en route from Kuala
Lumpur to Beijing more than seven weeks ago, and huge surface and underwater searches have failed to solve the mystery of what happened. That mystery has major implications for airline
manufacturers such as Boeing, which builds the 777 model that crashed and is awaiting a verdict as to what went wrong. Malaysia is leading an investigation into the crash, but Australia has a
key role in coordinating the hunt since the plane is believed to have crashed in its search and rescue zone. Abbott said finding any wreckage on the ocean surface was now highly unlikely and
Australia would forge ahead with the upcoming phase of the search despite it likely costing A$60-million. He added that while private companies under contract to Australia would soon be
taking over from the military assets dispatched in the wake of the crash, he would be seeking some appropriate contribution from other nations.
MH370 search costs PC no Congressional consensus on approach or spending
money
Stephen Trimble, Flight Global DC correspondent, 3-24-2014 MH370 disappearance spurs calls for
action by US lawmakers http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mh370-disappearance-spurs-calls-
for-action-by-us-lawmakers-397357/ DA: 6/12/14

A US lawmaker says he expects Congress to hold hearings on advancing technology that could have prevented the Malaysia Airlines
Boeing 777-200ER going missing on 8 March. Malaysian officials confirmed on 24 March that new satellite data indicates that Flight MH370 crashed in the South Indian Ocean, implying the
aircraft traversed thousands of miles untracked from its intended destination in Beijing. The US Navy has budgeted $4 million to devote search aircraft, including
the Boeing P-8A Poseidon, and other equipment to the hunt for the wreckage. Theres a role for Congress here particularly when you
consider the expense were going through to find this plane, says Rep Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California. Id like expect to have the
Congress hold hearings with the NTSB and the FAA to find out what is the state of technology, how quickly are we moving to satellite
transmissions, says Schiff, speaking on CNNs State of the Union talk show on 23 March. The disappearance of the aircraft has shocked many who believed that modern airliners could not be
lost with the existing state of communications and tracking technology. It seems crazy, though, in this day that we can have a major civilian airliner vanish in thin air and were down to a 30-day
ping to find it, Schiff says. Rep Patrick Meehan, a Republican from Pennsylvania, noted on earlier episode of the CNN show on 23 March that systems that monitor air traffic are not present
over large bodies of water. As a member of the House aviation subcommittee, Meehan illustrated that there remains no consensus on how to address the lack of
tracking technology, suggesting it could still be too expensive to invest in fool-proof systems.

Link Search and Rescue - MH 370 Orion Funding
Orion deployment costs millions
Henry Austin joined NBC News as a contributor in June 2013, and covers domestic and foreign
breaking stories for NBCNews.com. Austin joined NBC News after more than 10 years as a reporter.
After starting at British press agency South West News Service, he moved to British newspapers The Sun
and The People, before relocating to Canada to help set up press agency Hot News. There, he covered
U.S. news stories for a variety of newspapers and magazines around the world. 5-6-2014 Missing
MH370: Only 'Handful' of Subs Capable of Hunting Jet http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-
jet/missing-mh370-only-handful-subs-capable-hunting-jet-n97901 DA: 6/12/14

Only "a handful" of submersible vehicles can search the depths of the southern Indian Ocean in the area that is believed to be the final resting place of
missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, experts said Tuesday. Officials announced Monday that all of the data compiled in the hunt for the Boeing 777 will be re-examined to make sure the
right area is being scoured as part of a new $55 million phase of the operation . Flight 370 search enters new phase TODAY Capt. John Noble, the
former general manager of the International Salvage Union, told NBC News that it made sense to narrow down the search area as much as possible. You'd be lucky if there was a handful of
vehicles that can to go to the sort depths of the ocean that we are talking about here because they simply don't make them, Noble said. Listen to Air Traffic Control Interaction With Flight
MH370 NBC News A U.S. Navy deep-tow search system called the Orion might be an option, Noble said. It can search to a maximum depth of 20,000 feet of seawater,
according the U.S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage and Diving. The Orion would operate in tandem with a remotely operated vehicle called Curv 21 which could salvage any wreckage. Most
commercially owned remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) arent designed to go to those depths because there simply isnt the call for them, according to Dr. Simon Boxall at Britains University
of Southampton. As a result, many of those built are used for government research projects. They have a distinct advantage over autonomous underwater vehicles like the Bluefin 21 sub which
has been leading the search, because their cameras allow a live view of the seabed he said. The Bluefins data can only be downloaded and analyzed by researchers after it has resurfaced, he
added. An ROV will also have manipulators like claws built onto it, he added. So if you found a black box they would be capable of picking it up or they can attach cables to a wing so it can
be brought to the surface. At around $17,000 per day , an ROV costs considerably more to run than the Bluefin, Boxall said. Image: Bluefin-
21 LSIS Bradley Darvill / Australian Defence via EPA The Bluefin-21 as it is craned over the side of Ocean Shield in the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 370 in the southern
Indian Ocean on April 16. A substantial support vessel like the Australian Defense Vessel, Ocean Shield would also be required as a sea base
for the team because of the rough seas, Capt. Noble said. Ocean Shield has been used to launch the unmanned Bluefin 21 submarine that has been scouring the
ocean floor for the jet. A similar vessel would cost the searchers almost $68,000 a day, he said. So youre looking at a huge amount
after just a few months. For Boxall however, it was a question of priorities as well as the time and money it would cost to use one of these vessels. Its a hard
thing to say but this is a search operation rather than a search and rescue operation so do you pull a research team off their project for a year to
look for something that may never be found or do you let them continue with their important scientific research, he said.
Maritime funding causes huge fights acrimonious battles with House GOP
Larry Kiern is a partner in Winston & Strawn's Washington, D.C. office who concentrates his practice
in litigation, arbitration, maritime, environmental, legislative, and regulatory matters 2-15-2013
Congress Decides Maritime Issues Amid Fiscal Policy Debate http://www.maritime-
executive.com/magazine/Congress-Decides-Maritime-Issues-Amid-Fiscal-Policy-Debate DA: 6/7/14

Fromthe outset, the newly convened 113th Congress featured threats of a partial government shutdown in order to force more spending cuts . Prominent
House Republican leaders initially asserted that they would refuse toraise the national debt limit and thereby trigger a shutdown and mandatory spending cuts.
They have recently postponed that threat until mid-April. President Obama has asserted he will not bargain at all over the debt limit. Democratic congressional leaders decried the threat of a default as irresponsible. And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called on lawmakers to take
care of their job and raise the debt ceiling, warning that default would damage the economy. Adding fuel to the fire, the President stated that additional tax increases must accompany spending cuts. Rejecting that, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced
simply that there will be no additional tax revenues. So the first months of the new Congress promise to replaythe acrimonious process whereby Congress will eventually accept the inevitable
increase to the nations borrowing authority while trying to cobble together majorities for additional spending cuts and tax increases. As a practical matter, the nation has already reached the limit of its borrowing authority, and another politically contrived crisis looms. Sadly, this
irresponsible political game of chicken only harms the nations economy, including its maritime industry. In the summer of 2011 this same kind of brinksmanship needlessly
stalled the economic recovery and downgraded the nations financial rating. When Congress proves unreadyto make hard decisions, it does what most
legislative bodies do: It postpones them. Thus chronic congressional calls for fiscal responsibility are accompanied by growing debt and deficits. There is a reason why legislators have proven unable to agree on additional
spending cuts and tax hikes: Key constituencies oppose them. Congresss recent decision to approve $60 billion of emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy relief while rejecting the proposal of House Republican budget hawks to pay for it with an across-the-board spending cut of less than
two percent illustrates the challenge. Considering how the 2011 confrontation ended and the way spending cuts have been rhetorically linked to the debt limit increase by Speaker of the House John Boehner, the most likely outcome appears to be something akin to what we have just
witnessed. When push comes to shove, Congress will likely not default on the national debt and the borrowing limit will be raised at the last minute, or even shortly thereafter. Whether or not such a measure will include additional spending cuts or tax increases remains doubtful because that
will require offending core constituencies. So an increase in the debt limit may be accompanied by another face-saving congressional maneuver espousing fiscal responsibility, such as adoption of a budget, while actually producing the opposite effect. Cutting federal spending materially
means assembling majorities that agree to cut specific programs upon which Americans rely. Key Maritime Issues Despite the fi scal cliff controversy, the lame duck session of the 112th Congress decided significant maritime issues. Congress and the President enacted three important laws:
(1) the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2013, (2) the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, and (3) the American Taxpayers Relief Act of 2012. On December 20, President Obama signed the Coast Guard authorization into law. Omitted from the legislation was a House proposal
that would have established a uniform national ballast water standard and prohibited states from setting stricter standards. Repeated House proposals to accomplish this have now failed, and in light of the decision this year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to its
Vessel General Permit to adopt the uniform ballast water standard set forth by the Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organization, it appears this decision is resolved at the federal level. Congress also declined to adopt other
significant proposals. Notably, it failed to use the year-end flurry of legislation to correct its erroneous repeal of an important cargo preference provision inserted in the highway bill last June. As reported in our July/August 2012 column, the repeal hurts
national security while off-shoring the jobs of American seafarers who would otherwise transport U.S. government cargoes. Representatives Jeff Landry (R-LA) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) introduced the Saving Essential American Sailors Act to correct this legislative misstep.
However, despite widespread bipartisan support, it was not included in any of the new legislation passed during the lame duck session.
AT: No Link MH370 General
Media guarantees the plan is high profile over-cover every issue about MH370
Stephen McDonell is the ABC's China correspondent and has been covering the investigation from the
MH370 media centre in Kuala Lumpur 3-24-2014 It's about the media, not the plane
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-24/mcdonell-media-frenzy-descends-on-mh370-mystery/5340242
DA: 6/16/14

With no new information but a 24-hour news cycle to fill, reporters have made themselves the star of the
story for the missing Malaysia Airlines passenger jet, writes Stephen McDonell. The drama around the missing Malaysia Airlines passenger jet has attracted enormous
attention . There has been almost around-the-clock coverage of the search though often with very little solid information to
report on. That, however, has not stopped the world's media outlets going into considerable detail about all manner of theories as to the circumstances of the disappearance and potential reasons for it. And, when in doubt,
make the reporter the story. "Never forget that we are the story," Aaron Altman sarcastically quipped to Tom Grunick in Broadcast News. His nemesis had teared up in a cut-away of the reporter listening sensitively to a date rape
victim. We learn later, of course, that this was acting. The movie captured the moment in the 1980s when the big American TV Networks really dumbed down the news and made personalities out of their presenters. Fast forward to
now and the transformation has spread around the planet. The hunt for the missing passenger jet has understandably generated massive international interest. The
problem has been that most days there has been nothing new to report, with the exception of a couple of major shifts like when it emerged that the aircraft had gone off
on a completely different direction or when Australia announced a strong lead from satellite images. This has been especially challenging for the likes of CNN, keen to broadcast 24 hours a day on a story with no news. The ABC's
China correspondent details how the world's media is covering the missing plane on Correspondents Report. At one point I heard them promoting an item coming up looking at other great mysteries "like what happened to Marilyn
Monroe and" Are you serious: Marilyn Monroe? World's great mysteries? Is there nothing else happening? Never forget that we are the story. CNN studio presenter Bill Weir held up a photo of a child who was on board the missing
flight. He referred to the child's age in the present tense because, Bill told us, he's not giving up hope that the child is still alive. Gee thanks, Bill, we the viewers are now enriched with the knowledge that you're not giving up hope.
Richard Quest was interviewing the father of a passenger who was on board the Air France flight that crashed into the ocean prompting a search for the black box that took two years. In asking how the families coped at the time,
Richard added that he was covering this story back in 2009. He acknowledged that he, of course, was one step removed from the families in all this. What? Are you implying that it's even remotely relevant how hard it was for you to
cope with this in the studio from where you reported on this missing flight? Yet the really cringe-worthy aspect to the coverage of this crisis has been the grandstanding of television networks here at the MH370 media centre.
Although the press conferences are going out live across the world in who knows how many countries on who knows how many networks, here is how Sky News starts its questions in these briefings. "You're live on Sky News
London and our thoughts are very much with your countrymen at very difficult time." The belief is clearly that the self-promotion of "you're live on Sky News London" is somehow less cold and self-serving if the thoughts of Sky
News are with the transport minister's countrymen. Britain's ITV has taken it upon themselves to demand an apology for the families. At the press conference immediately after Chinese relatives of the missing burst into the media
centre to protest, they proudly re-asked the same question of the transport minister: "We asked you on Monday if you thought the time was now to apologise to the families. After what we witnessed this afternoon, is the time not really
now?" Hishammuddin Hussein responded: "The time is still to look for the aircraft." These are questions designed for TV reporters to be seen to be asking the tough questions for networks who think their audiences are stupid at a time
when there is no news. Here's France 24 going straight after the transport minister: "What consequences can these mistakes have on your administration? Can you confirm to us that you are Prime Minister Najib's cousin? Are you
protected by him?" Malaysian reporters thought this was pretty hilarious given that this family relationship is hardly a secret here. The transport minister seemed to think it was reasonably funny too. Over the laugher in the room he
looked perplexed and asked: "Where are you from?" France 24: "France". Transport minister: "Yes, I can confirm here that Najib is my cousin. I don't know what I am supposed to be protected from." The mock outrage, the theories,
the false empathy - they can't lose. The hard thing for all of us though has been to admit at various times that there has been simply nothing new to say. Yet the nature of these mass
international stories has changed forever. Journalists will file a piece based on thin air. And some of them, with nothing to
write about, will even descend into the navel-gazing exercise of analysing how other media outlets are reporting.

Energy
Link Energy General
Energy issues cost capital triggers massive fights over competing goals, role of
government, spending, picking winners and supply vs demand approaches
John Banks, nonresident fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution's Energy Security
Initiative; and adjunct professor for electricity markets at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced
International Studies, 8-14-2012 Common Ground in Energy Policy
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/08/14-energy-politics-banks DA: 6/5/14

A divisive energy policy debate is playing an increasingly prominent role in the presidential election
campaign reflecting long-simmering themes that emerged in the 1970s. The first theme is the challenge of
balancing three, often competing components of energy policy. There is a national security goal reducing
vulnerability to supply disruptions and price shocks linked to our overwhelming use of oil in transportation and dependence on oil imports. There
are environmental goals reducing pollution and adverse health effects of energy use, as well as meeting the challenge of global climate
change, namely reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. And finally there are broader economic goals embedded in energy
policy keeping prices low to bolster economic growth, creating jobs, promoting new industries or technologies, and raising revenue.
Balancing and prioritizing these goals is notoriously difficult . For example, our abundant natural gas supplies are
frequently touted as providing major economic benefits, but there are also environmental concerns. Moreover, goals change over time; in the
1970s we instituted policies to shift oil out of electricity generation and promoted coal use for national security and economic reasons, while now
we are looking for ways to reduce coal use for environmental reasons. The second major theme is the roiling debate over
the role of government. While not limited to the energy sector, there are nearly constant heated discussions over
fundamental questions: What is the right way if any for the government to influence or participate
in the market? What is the right mix of policy approaches, i.e., market-based vs. command and control? In the last several
years we have heard much criticism about the dangers (market distortions, waste of taxpayers money) of
government picking winners in fuels, technologies, or sectors. And there is growing support for government to promote a
portfolio approach; that our challenges are so complex that as one utility CEO phrased it we need silver buckshot not a silver bullet. In
todays policy discourse this is called an all of the above approach. The third theme is the tension over supply-side and
demand-side policy approaches . After the 1970s, there was an increased focus on alternatives to fossil fuels, and on the demand
side (efficiency and conservation). To this day we see a tug-of-war over how to prioritize and balance different
supply-side solutions, as well as how to balance supply options vs. demand side options.
Plan Drains PC regardless of bipartisan support multiple reasons
Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO, American Geophysical Union, National Journal
Experts Blog, 8-15-2012, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-
biparti.php?comments=expandall#comments

As convenient as it would be to say that a single change could alleviate the gridlock we are experiencing, the reality is that there are a
number of critical obstacles keeping us from passing energy and environmental legislation. We know that objective
scientific knowledge is needed to inform good policy decisions and that objective knowledge exists but all too often we are allowing
politics and ideology to take precedence over, or be pitted against, science. This not only risks the legitimacy of the science, but
also the strength of the policy and its ability to protect the security, health and welfare of the American people, and support a healthy and thriving
economy. The current rhetoric on climate change is a perfect example. We also know that the biggest obstacles to
passage of energy and environmental legislation are disagreements about the extent to which the federal
government can and should regulate business, and reluctance to launch new initiatives that will add to the
deficit. The science tells us that small initiatives that require only nominal investments can't begin to address the environmental and energy
challenges we face; and legislation big enough to achieve significant results will cost more than Congress is willing to
spend . Environmental legislation is also held prisoner to partisan gridlock , with far less bipartisan support than
many energy proposals. Even environmental legislation that saves many times its cost in medical and health care savings cannot advance in the
current Congress. One recent example is the defeat of legislation to limit the release of airborne particulates proven to adversely affect the
respiratory health of children and seniors. Dissonance about the role of federal regulation, its cost-effectiveness, and potential
to impose costs on private sector that might adversely impact economic recovery further complicate energy/environmental
legislative calculus . For these reasons, it is difficult for Congress to pass new energy and/or environmental
initiatives, even where there is wide bipartisan support for a given bill.

Link Energy Poison Pill Additions
No turns even non-controversial energy legislation requires PC to overcome
poison pill riders
Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter, 2-1-2012, Senate Tuesday group has bipartisan energy legislation in
its sights http://www.eenews.net/public/EEDaily/2012/02/01/1 DA: 6/5/14

Kerry conceded that it would be difficult to pass almost anything in an election year, "but we're going to do stuff that's not
controversial." Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who with Kerry introduced comprehensive climate change legislation in the last Congress,
said supporters of action on global warming remain disappointed that it failed. "But if we get some energy independence, alternative energy,
energy efficiency legislation adopted, I think we will thereby also diminish carbon pollution, which I think it' s all about," he said. Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.), who worked with Kerry and Lieberman on the climate bill but was not ultimately a co-sponsor, said that he saw opportunities
for bipartisan collaboration, especially on efficiency measures. "I think there's a market now for energy efficiency and a market for domestic
energy production," he said. In particular, Graham singled out his Home Star bill, which would have provided incentives for residential efficiency
retrofits that he sponsored last Congress with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). "I think there would be bipartisan support for that," Graham added. But
it is unclear whether Home Star would be a candidate for any proposed package this year. The Warner-Graham bill has not been reintroduced,
and while a version passed the House in 2010, when the Democrats were in the majority, the Senate version was never approved by the Finance
Committee. The bills the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has approved this Congress with bipartisan support
include an industrial energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a measure to establish
a new carbon capture and sequestration program at the Energy Department and bills to promote solar energy and geothermal.
Aside from the goal of producing legislation, the Tuesday group also provides an opportunity for its members to talk about climate and energy
issues. Energy Secretary Steven Chu addressed the senators in November. Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress Action Fund said
that any of the bills approved by the energy committee would have a good chance of making it to the floor of
the Senate. But while Kerry and his colleagues may succeed in crafting a bill that would garner broad bipartisan
support, Senate Republicans might move to attach amendments to it that would roll back U.S. EPA
pollution restrictions, approve the Keystone XL pipeline or open new areas along the West Coast or in Alaska to
petroleum production, Weiss said. Similar attempts are likely in the Republican-controlled House. "The
challenge would be to keep poison-pill amendments off of the bill without getting it pulled ," he said.

Link Energy Funding
Multiple reasons energy spending drains PC even if it has bipartisan support
Stephen Barlas, columnist @ Financial Executive, 1-1-2012 Does the US Really Need an Energy
Policy? http://mydigimag.rrd.com/article/Energy/927593/94198/article.html DA: 6/5/14

But it is highly unlikely that Obama's blueprint will lead to a firmer footing for U.S. energy security than past
so-called blueprints from other presidents, or perhaps more importantly, whether a print is even necessary. Obama's policy is a loosely knit set of policies that focus on producing more oil at
home and reducing dependence on foreign oil by developing cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency. The Obama plan is not the result of any particular deep thinking or strategy. The
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) called for the development of such a strategy in its November 2010 Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of
Changein Energy Technologies. Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy. PCAST called for a Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) as the first step in preparing a Quadrennial Energy
Review. DOE completed the QTR in November 2011, six months after Obama published his blueprint. Steven E. Koonin, former undersecretary of Energy for Science, says QTR is limited in
scope and all DOE felt it could get done given budget and time. "Technology development absent an understanding and shaping of policy and market context in which it gets deployed is not
aproductive exercise," he says. At this point there is no indication that DOE will even undertake the much more important QER, much less complete it any time soon. The larger
reality is that any energy independence plan proposed by any U.S, president--whether based on a QER or not--has as much a
chance of coming to fruition as Washington's football Redskins have of getting into the Super Bowl. But
regardless of the rhetoric of president after president, maybe the U.S. doesn't even need an energy independence or energy security policy. Natural Gas Making Inroads The biggest energy
input for industrial and commercial business users is natural gas. Natural gas prices are incredibly important, bothbecause the fuel is used directly to run industrial processes, heat facilities and
commercial buildings and make products such as fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics and other advanced materials. Thanks to the shale revolution, EIA forecasts natural gas prices will stay low
for the foreseeable future, rising to $4.66 m/BTU in 2015 and $5.05 m/BTU in 2020. That is good news for the owners of 15,000 to 17,000 industrial boilers in this country, most of which use
natural gas (and many of those who still use coal are switching to natural gas). In addition, companies such as Dow Chemical Co. are restarting operations at facilities idled during the recession,
Bayer AG is in talks with companies interested in building new ethane crackers at its two industrial parks in West Virginia and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. and LyondellBasellCo., are
considering expanding operations in the United States. Fracking has also had a much less remarked-upon effect on petroleum prices, which are important to businesses with transportation fleets.
New oil sources are spurting from the Bakken (stretching from Canada to North Dakota and Montana) and Eagles Ford (South Texas) shale plays. U.S. oil prices have fallen from $133.88 a
barrel of Texas intermediate crude in June 2008 to around $86.07. EIA predicts oil prices will rise to $94.58/bbl in 2015 and $108.10/bbl in 2020. Beyond the flood of natural gas washing over
them, U.S. companies are also benefitting from three decades of investments--most of whichwere made without federal subsidies, or support--into facility energy efficiency. Ralph Cavanagh, co-
director of the Energy Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a member of the Electricity Advisory Board at DOE, says the most important single solution for U.S. businesses
worried about energy prices and access is aggressive energy efficiency. "Energy independence is the wrong issue," Cavanagh says. "It is reducing the cost of energy services and improving
energy security. "U.S. business has done a tremendous job in energy efficiency overthe past three decades," he adds. "It takes less than one-half of a unit of energy to create $1 of economic
value than it did in 1973. Industry has done that by upgrading the efficiency of process equipmentand upgrading lighting." Others may well argue that the U.S. needs, and has always needed, an
energy policy, but one narrowly targeted. Kenneth B Medlock III, deputy director, Energy Forum at the James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, notes that DOE and the
Gas Research Institute helped develop, with federal funding, the horizontal drilling (i.e. fracking) technology that Mitchell Energy and Development Corp. (now a part of Devon Energy Corp.)
pioneered. "Government ought to be focused on research and development," Med-lock notes. He also is a supporter of loan guarantees to promote investment activity in frontier technologies,
and argues that as long as there are more good bets than bad bets in that kind of portfolio, thefunds committed in total are a good investment. But spectacular failures of
energy companies such as Solyndra Corp., the Chapter 11 filing of Beacon Power Corp. and other less publicized busts reduce, if
not kill, the prospect of any additional congressional funding for energy loan guarantees of any kind . That
is true even when legislation has bipartisan support, which is the case for the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness
Act of 2011 (S. 1000), which would, among other things, provide grants for a revolving loan program designed to develop energy-saving technologies for industrial and commercial use. The
bill passed the Senate Energy Committee by a vote of 18-3 in July. However, the Congressional Budget Office has pegged the cost of the bill's provisions at $1.2
billion over five years. That is a serious barrier to passage . And in any case, even if it did pass , the bill would simply
authorize funding. Congressional appropriations committees would have to approve the money as part of
DOE's budget, which would be highly unlikely , Solyndra aside, since similar programs authorized by the 2005 and
2007 energy bills are still begging for appropriations . Besides impact on the federal deficit, politics, too,
often impede progress on otherwise sensible policies. Politics apparently have clogged up the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline extension from
Canada.Environmentalists, a Democratic constituency, oppose the project, arguing it would create more greenhouse gas emissions than necessary and pose a potential drinking water danger for
Nebraska residents because it passed over the Ogallala Aquifer. That view is shared by Nebraska's Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, whose views are opposite those of all the can presidential
candidates, each of whom supported U.S. approval of Keystone XL. Labor unions, another key Democratic constituency, support the project that TransCanada, the project sponsor, says will
bring more than11 8,000 person-years of employment to workers in the states of Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. If the Keystone debate features Democrats versus Democrats and
Republicans versus Republicans, efforts to substitute domestic natural gas for foreign petroleum features business versus business.
Link Energy Loan Guarantees
New Energy loan guarantees drain capital Obama must push through political
minefield
Howell 12
Katie Howell and Hannah Northey, E&E reporters, Environment and Energy Daily, 2/13/12, lexis

With fresh clout , White House likely will continue clean energy spending push All indications suggest
President Obama will continue forging ahead into the political minefield of hefty clean energy investments when
he rolls out his fiscal 2013 spending wish list for the Energy Department and other federal agencies later this morning. Despite an ongoing
scandal surrounding a DOE loan guarantee to the now-bankrupt solar firm Solyndra and a lackluster response from Congress
over his previous efforts to boost clean energy spending, Obama has hinted he is not slacking off in his push to
ramp up federal investment in the sector. Indeed, Obama dedicated a significant portion of his State of the Union address last month to energy spending. "I will
not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here," he said during the speech. "Some technologies don't pan out; some
companies fail," he added in reference to Solyndra. "But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy." Over the past few months, the White House has carefully been making its case
for strong clean energy investments. Last year, the administration began touting its early investments in hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- technology, which has helped drive a natural gas
boom in the United States, as justification for current investments in new clean energy technologies (E&E Daily, Feb. 14, 2011). And that approach went primetime this year when Obama made
a direct link between the two in his State of the Union address. "By the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this
natural gas out of shale rock -- reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground," Obama said. Salo Zelermyer, a former DOE lawyer
during the George W. Bush administration who now works for Bracewell and Giuliani, said Obama's State of the Union remarks indicate he is still strongly pushing
clean energy investments. "I think it seems clear based on the president's remarks in the State of the Union that he remains committed to -- one could argue -- doubling
down on his bets on clean energy investments to the point that in the State of the Union he used the example of technological achievements that have led to fracking and shale gas recovery as a
means of arguing that investments such as the ones made in Solyndra and other loan guarantee projects are entirely worth it for the public," Zelermyer said. On Friday, the White House circulated
an independent review it requested on the loan guarantee program. That report said that while there was room for improvement in the program, DOE wasn't being too risky with taxpayers'
money, a statement many Democrats immediately hailed as vindication (E&ENews PM, Feb. 10). Still, the White House is not likely to use its
newfound political clout on clean energy investments to pour more money into the loan guarantee
program, which got its most significant influx of cash from the 2009 stimulus law. Instead, observers say, Obama will likely request near-fiscal 2012 funding levels for DOE clean
energy research and development programs. "While I don't expect any grand new proposal for funding -- certainly for the clean technology loan
guarantees, there may be some sort of minimal level to continue that program," Zelermyer said. "I would anticipate a request for funding for [the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy], [the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy] and other research offices ... will be in line with what came out in the last budget request." But the
2012 request didn't fare so well among fiscally minded Republicans in Congress. In fact, lawmakers
roughly halved the appropriation for DOE research and development programs compared with the White House
request. For example, the White House requested $3.2 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, but Congress appropriated $1.8 billion. And the White House
called for $550 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, but Congress appropriated $275 million. Other budget priorities Republicans in Congress
will get their first chance Thursday to blast the proposed spending plan during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing with
Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Link Energy Reduce Restrictions
Reducing energy restrictions requires PC partisan gridlock, no support for
Obama
Michael Whatley is the executive vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance in Washington D.C, 10-
30-2012, Energy in the Next Four (Political) Years
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=121729 DA: 6/5/14

Should Republicans hold the House, and Democrats hold the Senate, it will make it exceedingly difficult
for any meaningful energy legislation to pass in the next two years, regardless of who wins the Presidency. Smaller legislative
measures, including requisite funding for federal agencies, are likely, but a bipartisan movement to pass a comprehensive energy package is unlikely. For the Obama
administration, partisan gridlock in Congress would require the President to push his energy agenda through
regulation. Potential items of his docket include efforts to expand federal regulation over hydraulic fracturing and to create new incentives or mandates for alternative
fuel consumption, such as a low carbon fuel standard. For a Romney administration, any substantive changes to our current regulatory
structure, especially as it relates to public lands, would require Congressional approval, something that a bitterly
divided Congress will be loath to provide . Similarly, incentives for renewable energy programs and tax credits would be up to the
discretion of the Congress and its budgeting process. However, a Romney administration would likely expand leasing opportunities in the federal offshore and public
lands for oil and natural gas development.
Multiple factors ensure plan spurs gridlock regardless of bipart support
Stephen Barlas, columnist @ Financial Executive, 1-1-2012 Does the US Really Need an Energy
Policy? http://mydigimag.rrd.com/article/Energy/927593/94198/article.html DA: 6/5/14

But it is highly unlikely that Obama's blueprint will lead to a firmer footing for U.S. energy security than past so-
called blueprints from other presidents, or perhaps more importantly, whether a print is even necessary. Obama's policy is a loosely knit set of policies that focus on producing more oil at home and reducing dependence on foreign oil
by developing cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency. The Obama plan is not the result of any particular deep thinking or strategy. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) called for the
development of such a strategy in its November 2010 Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Changein Energy Technologies. Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy. PCAST called for a Quadrennial Technology
Review (QTR) as the first step in preparing a Quadrennial Energy Review. DOE completed the QTR in November 2011, six months after Obama published his blueprint. Steven E. Koonin, former undersecretary of Energy for
Science, says QTR is limited in scope and all DOE felt it could get done given budget and time. "Technology development absent an understanding and shaping of policy and market context in which it gets deployed is not
aproductive exercise," he says. At this point there is no indication that DOE will even undertake the much more important QER, much less complete it any time soon. The larger reality is that any
energy independence plan proposed by any U.S, president--whether based on a QER or not--has as much a chance of coming to
fruition as Washington's football Redskins have of getting into the Super Bowl. But regardless of the rhetoric of president after president,
maybe the U.S. doesn't even need an energy independence or energy security policy. Natural Gas Making Inroads The biggest energy input for industrial and commercial business users is natural gas. Natural gas prices are
incredibly important, bothbecause the fuel is used directly to run industrial processes, heat facilities and commercial buildings and make products such as fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics and other advanced materials. Thanks to
the shale revolution, EIA forecasts natural gas prices will stay low for the foreseeable future, rising to $4.66 m/BTU in 2015 and $5.05 m/BTU in 2020. That is good news for the owners of 15,000 to 17,000 industrial boilers in this
country, most of which use natural gas (and many of those who still use coal are switching to natural gas). In addition, companies such as Dow Chemical Co. are restarting operations at facilities idled during the recession, Bayer AG is
in talks with companies interested in building new ethane crackers at its two industrial parks in West Virginia and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. and LyondellBasellCo., are considering expanding operations in the United States.
Fracking has also had a much less remarked-upon effect on petroleum prices, which are important to businesses with transportation fleets. New oil sources are spurting from the Bakken (stretching from Canada to North Dakota and
Montana) and Eagles Ford (South Texas) shale plays. U.S. oil prices have fallen from $133.88 a barrel of Texas intermediate crude in June 2008 to around $86.07. EIA predicts oil prices will rise to $94.58/bbl in 2015 and
$108.10/bbl in 2020. Beyond the flood of natural gas washing over them, U.S. companies are also benefitting from three decades of investments--most of whichwere made without federal subsidies, or support--into facility energy
efficiency. Ralph Cavanagh, co-director of the Energy Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a member of the Electricity Advisory Board at DOE, says the most important single solution for U.S. businesses worried
about energy prices and access is aggressive energy efficiency. "Energy independence is the wrong issue," Cavanagh says. "It is reducing the cost of energy services and improving energy security. "U.S. business has done a
tremendous job in energy efficiency overthe past three decades," he adds. "It takes less than one-half of a unit of energy to create $1 of economic value than it did in 1973. Industry has done that by upgrading the efficiency of process
equipmentand upgrading lighting." Others may well argue that the U.S. needs, and has always needed, an energy policy, but one narrowly targeted. Kenneth B Medlock III, deputy director, Energy Forum at the James A Baker III
Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, notes that DOE and the Gas Research Institute helped develop, with federal funding, the horizontal drilling (i.e. fracking) technology that Mitchell Energy and Development Corp. (now a
part of Devon Energy Corp.) pioneered. "Government ought to be focused on research and development," Med-lock notes. He also is a supporter of loan guarantees to promote investment activity in frontier technologies, and argues
that as long as there are more good bets than bad bets in that kind of portfolio, thefunds committed in total are a good investment. But spectacular failures of energy companies
such as Solyndra Corp., the Chapter 11 filing of Beacon Power Corp. and other less publicized busts reduce, if not kill, the prospect
of any additional congressional funding for energy loan guarantees of any kind . That is true even when legislation
has bipartisan support, which is the case for the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2011 (S. 1000), which would, among other things, provide grants for a revolving loan program
designed to develop energy-saving technologies for industrial and commercial use. The bill passed the Senate Energy Committee by a vote of 18-3 in July. However, the Congressional Budget Office has pegged the cost of the bill's
provisions at $1.2 billion over five years. That is a serious barrier to passage. And in any case, even if it did pass, the bill would simply authorize funding. Congressional appropriations committees would have to approve the money
as part of DOE's budget, which would be highly unlikely, Solyndra aside, since similar programs authorized by the 2005 and 2007 energy bills are still begging for appropriations. Besides impact on the
federal deficit, politics, too, often impede progress on otherwise sensible policies. Politics apparently have clogged up the
proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline extension from Canada.Environmentalists, a Democratic constituency, oppose the project, arguing it would create more greenhouse gas emissions than necessary and pose a potential drinking water
danger for Nebraska residents because it passed over the Ogallala Aquifer. That view is shared by Nebraska's Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, whose views are opposite those of all the can presidential candidates, each of whom
supported U.S. approval of Keystone XL. Labor unions, another key Democratic constituency, support the project that TransCanada, the project sponsor, says will bring more than11 8,000 person-years of employment to workers in
the states of Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. If the Keystone debate features Democrats versus Democrats and Republicans versus
Republicans, efforts to substitute domestic natural gas for foreign petroleum features business versus business.

Link Energy Reduce Environmental Restrictions
Reducing environmental restrictions triggers massive battle in congress and
requires PC
Michael E. Kraft professor emeritus of political science and public affairs and Herbert Fisk Johnson
Professor of Environmental Studies emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Environmental
Policy and Politics in Transition 2012 p. 2-3 DA: 6/5/14

Despite these notable pledges and actions, rising criticism of environmental programs also was evident throughout the 1990s and the first decade
of the twenty-first century, both domestically and internationally. So too were a multiplicity of efforts to chart new policy directions. For
example, intense opposition to environmental and natural resource policies arose in the 104th Congress (19951997), when the Republican Party
took control of both the House and Senate for the first time in forty years. Ultimately, much like the earlier efforts in Ronald Reagans
administration, that antiregulatory campaign on Capitol Hill failed to gain much public support at the time. 2
Nonetheless, pitched battles over environmental and energy policy continued in every Congress through the
112th (20112013), and they were equally evident in the executive branch, particularly in the Bush administration as it
sought to rewrite environmental rules and regulations to favor industry and to increase development of
U.S. oil and natural gas supplies on public lands (see Chapter 8). 3 Yet growing dissatisfaction with the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity
of environmental policies was by no means confined to congressional conservatives and the Bush administration. It could be found among a
broad array of interests, including the business community, environmental policy analysts, environmental justice groups, and state and local
government officials. 4 Since 1992, governments at all levels have struggled to redesign environmental policy for the
twenty-first century. Under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tried to reinvent
environmental regulation through the use of collaborative decision making involving multiple stakeholders, public-private partnerships, market-
based incentives, information disclosure, and enhanced flexibility in rulemaking and enforcement (see Chapters 8, 9, and 10). 5 Particularly
during the Clinton administration, new emphases within the EPA and other federal agencies and departments on ecosystem management and
sustainable development sought to foster comprehensive, integrated, and long-term strategies for environmental protection and natural resource
management (see Chapter 8). 6 Many state and local governments have pursued similar goals with adoption of a wide range of innovative
policies that promise to address some of the most important criticisms directed at contemporary environmental policy (see Chapters 2 and 11).
The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 brought additional attention to innovative policy ideas, although less attention than many of
Obamas supporters had anticipated (see Chapter 4). Taken together, however, over the past two decades we have seen a new sense of
urgency emerge about climate change and other third generation environmental, energy, and resource problems
and, at least in some quarters, a determination to address those problems despite weak economic conditions. The
precise way in which Congress, the states, and local governments will change environmental policies in the years to come
remains unclear. The partisan gridlock of recent years may give way to greater consensus on the need to act; yet policy change
rarely comes easily in the U.S. political system. Its success likely depends on several key conditions:
public support for change, how the various policy actors stake out and defend their positions on the issues, the way the media cover these
disputes, the relative influence of opposing interests, and the state of the economy. Political leadership , as always, will play a
role, especially in reconciling deep divisions between the major political parties on environmental
protection and natural resource issues. Political conflict over the environment is not going to vanish any
time soon. Indeed, it may well increase as the United States and other nations struggle to define how they will respond to the latest
generation of environmental problems and how they will reconcile their preferred policy actions with other priorities. The Role of Government
and Politics The high level of political conflict over environmental protection efforts recently underscores the
important role government plays in devising solutions to the nations and the worlds mounting environmental ills. Global climate change,
population growth, the spread of toxic and hazardous chemicals, loss of biological diversity, and air and water pollution all require various
actions by individuals and institutions at all levels of society and in both the public and private sectors. These actions range from scientific
research and technological innovation to improved environmental education and significant changes in corporate and consumer behavior. As
political scientists, we believe government has an indispensable role to play in environmental protection and improvement. The chapters in this
volume thus focus on environmental policies and the government institutions and political processes that affect them. Our goal is to illuminate
that role and to suggest needed changes and strategies.
Multiple Institutional fragmentations heighten the link
Michael E. Kraft professor emeritus of political science and public affairs and Herbert Fisk Johnson
Professor of Environmental Studies emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Environmental
Policy and Politics in Transition 2012 p. 5-6 DA: 6/5/14

The constitutional requirements for policymaking were established well over two hundred years ago, and they remain much the same today. The
U.S. political system is based on a division of authority among three branches of government and between the federal government and the states.
Originally intended to limit government power and to protect individual liberty, today this division of power may impede the ability
of government to adopt timely and coherent environmental policy. Dedication to principles of federalism means that environmental
policy responsibilities are distributed among the federal government, the fifty states, and thousands of local governments (see Chapter 2).
Responsibility for the environment is divided within the branches of the federal government as well, most
notably in the U.S. Congress, with power shared between the House and Senate, and jurisdiction over
environmental policies scattered among dozens of committees and subcommittees (Table 1-1). For example,
approximately twenty Senate and twenty-eight House committees have some jurisdiction over EPA activities. 7
The executive branch is also institutionally fragmented, with at least some responsibility for the environment and natural
resources located in twelve cabinet departments and in the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other agencies (Figure 1-1). Most
environmental policies are concentrated in the EPA and in the Interior and Agriculture Departments; yet the Departments of Energy, Defense,
Transportation, and State are increasingly important actors as well. Finally, the more than 100 federal trial and appellate courts play key roles in
interpreting environmental legislation and adjudicating disputes over administrative and regulatory actions (see Chapter 6). The
implications of this constitutional arrangement for policymaking were evident in the early 1980s as Congress and the courts
checked and balanced the Reagan administrations efforts to reverse environmental policies of the previous decade.
They were equally clear during the 1990s when the Clinton administration vigorously opposed actions in
Congress to weaken environmental programs. They could be seen again in the presidency of George W.
Bush, when Congress challenged the presidents proposed national energy policy and many other environmental
initiatives, particularly when the Democrats regained both houses of Congress following the 2006 election. They were just as
evident in Barack Obamas presidency when the Republican House in 2011 took strong exception to the presidents budget
recommendations and proposals for new rules and regulations in the agencies, especially the EPAs efforts to reduce toxic pollution from coal-
fired power plants and to restrict release of greenhouse gases linked to climate change. During the last two decades, the conflict between
the two major parties on environmental issues had one striking effect. It shifted attention to the role of the states in
environmental policy. As Barry Rabe discusses in Chapter 2, the states often have been at the center of the most innovative actions on
environmental and energy policy, including climate change, when the federal government remained mired in partisan
disputes . By 2011, for example, well over half of the states had adopted some form of climate change policy, particularly to favor use of
renewable energy sources, when Congress and the White House could reach no agreement on what to do. 8 Generally
after broad consultation and agreement among diverse interests, both within and outside of government, divided authority typically
produces slow and incremental alterations in public policy. Such political interaction and accommodation
of interests enhance the overall legitimacy of the resulting public policies. Over time, however, the cumulative effect often results in
disjointed policies that fall short of the ecological or holistic principles of policy design so often touted by environmental scientists,
planners, and activists.
Attempts to reduce environmental regulations spur congressional deadlock
E&E Daily, 1-17-2012 Committees prep their agendas but will anything really get done?
http://www.governorsbiofuelscoalition.org/?p=1217 DA: 6/5/14

House Science Chairman Ralph Hall (R-Texas) and Rep. Andy Harris, the Maryland Republican who chairs the Energy and Environment
Subcommittee, made their biggest goal in 2011 to stand over EPA's shoulder on everything from new air pollution
standards to chemical risk assessments. Their panel does not have jurisdiction over the actual regulations but expect Republicans to stay
in the EPA oversight mode in 2012, when the agency could propose new rules for refineries, greenhouse
gases from power plants and the hydraulic fracturing techniques used in oil and gas production. Harris' subcommittee has
already scheduled a Feb. 1 hearing called "Fractured Science" to examine EPA's research into possible groundwater contamination from drilling
in Pavillion, Wyo. Other highlights Lessons learned from 2011 The only bill to clear the committee's energy and environment panel last year was
introduced by Harris to renew funding for research on algae blooms, which can cause oxygen-poor, fish-killing "dead zones" in water bodies such
as the Chesapeake Bay -- a major issue in Harris' Maryland district. That bill is still waiting on the House floor, and not much else from
the panel is expected to join it. According to Republican committee staff, the bill most likely to move this year is a renewal of the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act, a law governing EPA science activities that hasn't gotten a
specific funding authorization since 1981. The politics surrounding the agency's new regulations make it a likely
candidate for deadlock , but Democratic committee staff said this year's work would in any event lay
foundations for future stabs at updating EPA's scientific integrity and peer review methods.
Link Offshore Drilling
Expanding offshore drilling spurs partisan battle and committee gridlock
E&E Daily, 1-17-2012 Committees prep their agendas but will anything really get done?
http://www.governorsbiofuelscoalition.org/?p=1217 DA: 6/5/14

Despite an impressive track record at clearing energy and public lands measures, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
didn't see a single measure debated on the Senate floor in 2011. Retiring committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is
likely to keep the pressure on Senate leaders to take those measures up in the full chamber as his time in the Senate comes to a close at the end of
this year. And he'll also likely encourage discussions of his upcoming clean energy standard legislation. The measure isn't likely to gain much
traction among Republicans in either chamber -- a fact Bingaman acknowledges -- but he says it will still be important to start debate on the issue.
Other highlights Lessons learned from 2011 The committee last year kept up its famously bipartisan appearances, churning out an
impressive 61 bills. But the panel still suffered from bouts of partisanship that brought action on certain issues --
like a response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill -- to a standstill. The addition of several new tea party-backed GOP freshmen to the
roster also caused some strife at committee meetings and in negotiations on seemingly noncontroversial bills. Head-butting isn't likely
to go away on key issues as election-year politics dominate discussions throughout the Capitol. CES: Bingaman has vowed to float
legislation early this session that would create a federal clean energy standard requiring utilities to generate a certain percentage of their
electricity from low-carbon sources in the coming decades. Once introduced, the measure is sure to get ample face time in the committee, but
partisan roadblocks in the full Senate and a sure death in the House will likely prevent it from moving beyond the panel. Smaller bipartisan bills:
The committee last year cleared dozens of smaller energy bills on a bipartisan basis -- many of them breakouts from a broad 2009 energy bill that
stalled in the full Senate -- but none have seen floor time. Bingaman will likely push Senate leaders to move on some of those measures as he sees
the clock ticking on his time in the Senate. Offshore drilling: Efforts last year to advance offshore drilling safety language stalled
after ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) urged the inclusion of coastal revenue-sharing language in a
bill responding to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Bingaman isn't likely to advance the legislation this session, but the committee
could take a look at other offshore drilling issues, such as Interior's five-year leasing plan. Republicans and the oil
industry want to see the areas included in that plan beefed up, while environmentalists and many Democrats say
it already infringes on too many sensitive areas.
Offshore drilling sparks fierce opposition in committees and senate
E&E Daily, 1-17-2012 Committees prep their agendas but will anything really get done?
http://www.governorsbiofuelscoalition.org/?p=1217 DA: 6/5/14

The battles won't be pretty. But they -- along with the campaigns, of course -- will be what occupies Washington during
the next year. What follows is a look at the likely agendas for key congressional committees over the next several months: Cont HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES
The agenda for 2012 Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.). Energy development on the nation's lands and waters will continue to set
the agenda for the Natural Resources Committee in 2012. Expect to see plenty of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and his agency heads on
the witness stand as the committee continues its assault on the Obama administration's policies. "Republicans on the committee will continue to focus on creating new
American jobs, reducing the debt and federal deficit, protecting access to our nation's natural resources and conducting oversight of the administration's policies and
actions," said committee spokeswoman Jill Strait. Last year saw 115 hearings and markups of a dizzying number of bills. "I think 2012 will be equally as busy," Strait
said. Other highlights Lessons learned from 2011 The last session included 115 hearings and saw the passage of several significant
Republican-led bills promoting offshore drilling, renewable energy, copper mining, and hunting and fishing, among many others. But
while some of the bills passed the full House, only a few small-scale proposals passed the Senate, Democrats point out.
Regardless of who is to blame, lawmakers know they will need to work much harder to achieve bipartisan compromises this session, particularly in an election year.
Cutting red tape: The committee's focus will largely mirror last year's agenda: job creation through increased energy development on public lands and waters. Expect
early action on a trio of bills introduced late last year that would allow oil and gas leasing in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, allow drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and reinstate a scrapped George W. Bush administration plan to promote oil shale development in the West. The bills, which are designed to raise
new revenues to shore up the Highway Trust Fund, will see action "in the coming weeks or months," according to a statement this month by House Speaker John
Boehner (R-Ohio) (Greenwire, Jan. 9). Renewables: The committee will continue seeking ways to streamline the federal permitting process. A committee aide said
Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) plans to push for House passage of four bills his panel reported last July that would shorten National Environmental Policy Act
reviews for low-impact renewable energy projects. A committee aide said the panel will explore other ways to unlock the vast potential to site wind, solar, hydro and
other energy projects on public lands. Endangered species: In addition to NEPA, the committee will seek to overhaul the Endangered Species Act, a nearly 40-year-
old law critics contend has stymied access to domestic resources. At its first hearing on the matter last month, Republicans on the committee blamed the frequency of
citizens' lawsuits that many argue have hamstrung the Fish and Wildlife Service (E&E Daily, Dec. 7, 2010). The committee will hold additional oversight hearings to
examine the law's strengths and weaknesses and explore potential improvements. The committee may also review a landmark settlement between the Obama
administration and environmentalists that will force the administration to issue final listing decisions on hundreds of species over the next five years. Oversight: The
committee will continue its oversight of major Obama administration policies, including its five-year offshore leasing plan, a proposed rewrite of the Office of Surface
Mining's stream buffer rule, national ocean planning and the folding of OSM into the Bureau of Land Management. The committee heard from Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar shortly after he released the agency's five-year leasing plan, which calls for continued sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, but excluded the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts, angering Republicans. Expect to see much more of Salazar on the witness stand as his agency finalizes the leasing plan and issues other decisions on
Alaskan offshore drilling, hydraulic fracturing regulations and oil shale. Oceans: Hastings plans to continue his campaign against the administration's National Ocean
Policy. Spurred by last week's release of a draft implementation plan, Hastings said he would hold additional hearings to vet the policy, which he warned could place
portions of the ocean off-limits for recreation, fishing or development. Hastings held two hearings last year on the plan, targeting it as a "burdensome" federal effort
that could destroy jobs and hinder economic growth. Marine advocates applauded the plan. Access: Republicans will continue attacking Obama policies they argue
have unfairly locked up public lands. While no markup has been set, the committee will continue to push a bill to release tens of millions of acres of forests the
Clinton administration placed off-limits to roads and timber harvests. The bill, which would also lift interim protections by the Bureau of Land Management, is the
greatest threat to public lands in a generation, environmentalists have warned. Expect a continued focus on land management decisions, including the new Forest
Service planning rule, that could affect access for motorized users like off-highway vehicles and snowmobiles. Democratic defense: Committee
Democrats led by Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts will continue to portray the majority as beholden to fossil fuel
interests, pointing to its failure to consider the ranking member's proposal to implement offshore drilling
reforms recommended by the president's BP spill commission. They will continue to point to deficit reduction
measures that target oil industry tax breaks; leased, but undeveloped, public lands; and royalty-free mineral development. In
addition, committee Democrats say they will fight hard to stifle Republican attempts to allow oil and gas
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, new uranium claims near the Grand Canyon and limit or reduce funding for land acquisition and conservation.
The minority will also promote accelerated development of solar, wind and other clean energy on public lands.
Expanding offshore drilling only costs political capital alienates dems and
environmental lobby and GOP and industry complain no matter what
Margaret Kriz Hobson, E&E reporter, 4-18-2012 OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's development
plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill
http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1 DA: 6/5/14

OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he
proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Two years after the BP PLC oil ri g exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history, Obama's "all of the above"
energy policy includes offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan. Since the moratorium on offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the
administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi
seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the
Obama administration has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to
adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that
the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon, Obama's offshore oil development
policies aren't winning him any political capital . The environmental community hates the drilling
proposals. The Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric.
According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other
alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized on
energy issues. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's offshore
oil development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't going
to convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals, Sabato said. "He's obviously
aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas
development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan
are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratoriumand passed a global warming bill. When the climate change
legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all U.S.
shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas plan floated by former President George W. Bush during his last days in office. That proposal woul d have offered 31 federal lease sales
and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison, Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast. American PetroleumInstitute officials say that Obama's policies
have kept 87 percent of federal offshore acreage off limits to oil and gas development. "We need more certainty in the process and knowledge that things are going to move forward at a much better pace so that companies can plan for and make investments in U.S. projects," argued Erik
Milito, API's group director for upstreamand industry operations But White House officials take issue with API's explanation. Interior Department officials say that thanks to Obama administration policies, more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable offshore oil and natural
gas resources will be open to exploration and development in the next five years. "Those who claimthat the areas that will be offered constitute few total acres aren't paying attention to where the oil and gas resources are," Heather Zichal, Obama's deputy assistant for energy and climate
change, wrote in a White House blog. "[T]hat's where we are focusing our attention, in places like the Western Gulf and the Central Gulf, an offshore area which, according to our resource estimates, has nearly double the resource potential of any other." Meanwhile,
environmentalists are fighting the administration's return to Obama's pre-oil spill energy policies. Charging that the White
House and Congress are ignoring the lessons of the BP oil spill, the green groups are focusing their opposition on the president's plans to advance oil and gas development along the Alaska shores and parts of the East Coast.
Plan unpopular - past votes prove
Darren Goode, staff writer, Politico, 5-18-2011, "Senate slams GOP drilling bill",
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55241.html DA: 6/5/14

A Senate Republican offshore drilling bill died Wednesday due to opposition from Democrats and criticism from within
the GOP that the measure didn't go far enough in enabling new production. The 42-57 vote left sponsors well short of the needed 60
for the motion to proceed to pass. Five Republicans voted no Sens. Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe and David Vitter. No
Democrats voted yes; Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus didn't vote.
Most contentious energy issue drains capital and support
Juliet Eilperin and Anne E. Kornblut, Washington Post Staff Writer, 4-1-2010, President Obama
opens new areas to offshore drilling http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033100024.html?hpid=topnews DA: 6/5/14

President Obama's decision, announced Wednesday, to approve new oil and gas drilling off U.S. coasts for the first time in decades
reflects a high-stakes calculation by the White House: Splitting the difference on the most contentious energy
issues could help secure a bipartisan climate deal this year. In what could represent the biggest expansion of offshore energy exploration in half a century, Obama
announced that he will open the door to drilling off Virginia's coast, in other parts of the mid- and south Atlantic, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in waters off
Alaska. At the same time, he declared off-limits the waters off the West Coast and in Alaska's Bristol Bay, canceled four scheduled lease sales in Alaska and called for
more study before allowing new lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. What Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called "a new direction" in energy policy amounted
to an offshore political gerrymander in which the administration barred drilling near states where it remains unpopular -- California and New Jersey -- and allowed it
in places where it has significant support, such as Virginia and parts of Alaska and the Southeast. Some conservative critics questioned whether the policy will have
any real impact on energy production, while liberals decried the risks to the environment. But the White House's key audience -- undecided
senators who will determine whether a climate bill succeeds on Capitol Hill this year -- suggested that the move had helped revive the legislation's prospects. A string
of senators, including Alaska's Mark Begich (D) and Lisa Murkowski (R), Louisiana's Mary Landrieu (D), New Hampshire's Judd Gregg (R), and Virginia Democrats
Mark Warner and James Webb, praised the strategy. They have urged the administration to use a climate bill to help boost domestic energy production, through
expansion of oil and gas drilling and nuclear power, and Begich and Gregg said Wednesday's announcement made them more optimistic about a deal on the bill than
they have been in months. Noting that Obama has also offered recent support for more nuclear production, Gregg said such moves show that the administration is
"genuinely trying to approach the energy production issue in a multifaceted way and a realistic way, rather than listening to people on their left." Landrieu concurred,
saying that Obama is "sending as clear a signal as possible that he is willing to compromise in a way that will bring forth a great energy and climate bill, and he wants
Republicans to be a part of it." But coastal lawmakers such as Democratic Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin and Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland joined environmentalists in
blasting the change as unnecessary, and said it could jeopardize fisheries and tourist attractions. Wooing proponents of drilling "cuts both
ways," Cardin warned. "You can lose support if you do things that have environmental risks."
Offshore drilling funding causes controversy GOP budget conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progresss
Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is
the Public Lands Project Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public
Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-ways-that-looming-budget-cuts-to-
public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-all-americans/ DA: 6/10/14

On January 2, 2013 a set of large, across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011.
These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major
domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands. The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of
budget conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe super committeewas unable to come to an
agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so,
federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2 trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered a
plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only
an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national
security. Sequestrations impacts could be equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation. Sequestration will have a
bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer
places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional
sources of revenue must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge he convinced many in Congress to sign
promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy
government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can
move forward. But unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are going to have to start making do
without some of these vital services we now consider fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the
Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might mean, including: Less accurate
weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and
Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no
doubt Americans will feel the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites, firefighters, American-made energy, and
hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for
these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and
security (weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber,
grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-
1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for conservation should not
be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order
to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing these necessary services to the American people, congressional Republicans must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue
increases and spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans
due to the economic and societal benefits they provide. Attempting to balance the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to
increase revenue means we will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer places to hunt, fish, and
relax. Impact on public lands and oceans The White House Office of Management and Budget released a report in September determining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would
be a reduction of 8.2 percent for discretionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that has a defense
function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to
individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where appropriations are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Service operations budget will lose $183
million, but it does not specify which services or which parks will bear the brunt of this reductionthose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies
might makefor example, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a
number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the agencies provide. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most important and evident investments that the federal government
makes is in weather prediction. But sequestration could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If this happens, Americans
will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nations primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts
you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Centers storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of global climate change. Even the Weather Channels forecasts come from this
agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting capabilities. As accurate as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to
be, European models predicted its landfall days before U.S. models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a week
after Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2
percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nations aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending
levels, to buy replacement satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 monthsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During this time, the accuracy of
advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account
would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and Budgets projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and
warnings, potentially causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development Energy development is an important and legitimate use of our lands and
oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore) provide substantial natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural
gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands and waters. Sequestration, however, could potentially hinder government agencies from planning,
studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently,
the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it
comes to offshore wind development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts Nantucket Sound. And after completing the
first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers, the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be
drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and ocean management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and help build
fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The
stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the
Interiors Bureau of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and minerals management, including permit
processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part
devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by $105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy
projects on public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by $13 million in
fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency manages exploration, science, leasing, permitting, and development of
offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental
Shelf.


Link Offshore Drilling Arctic
Arctic drilling contentious even bipartisan issues are politicized and cause
partisan fights
Arctic Power, an Alaska-based lobbying firm, 2010 Mid Term Elections Could Help Alaskan
Energy http://www.anwr.org/Politics/Mid-Term-Elections-Could-Help-Alaskan-Energy.php DA: 6/7/14
**edited for offensive language

The US Mid-Term elections concluded with a large influx of Republican law makers signaling a change in US House committee chairmanships. With the departure of Democrat lawmakers from the majority chairs, committees like
the House Natural Resources Committee will switch to Republican control. Congressional Republicans, in general, have been more sympathetic to Alaskan energy issues than Congressional Democrats. With both issues of
ANWR exploration and outer continental shelf (OCS) exploration, Republicans in the House and Senate have made up the majority of yes votes throughout the history of debate on these issues. In Alaska,
neither issue has been traditionally partisan with both winning strong near unanimous support from Republicans and Democrats alike. ANWR exploration in particular has remained an extremely
contentious and politicized issue on Capitol Hill and it is hoped by many in Alaska the change in power will bring a greater chance for success. During the 110th Congress, soon
to end, only one vote on ANWR ever took place despite there being 18 ANWR bills introduced. This record pales compared to the 5 or 6 votes that Congress has sometimes averaged on ANWR per Congressional term over the past
20 years. The issue of ANWR exploration however will still have a very difficult time of it during the 111th Congress due to the fact that the Senate still remains in Democrat control and the President still remains decidedly against
the issue. As a stand alone issue, ANWR will stand a slim chance to pass in the Senate where a certain 60 votes will be required to overcome an expected partisan filibuster. However, the defensive position that ANWR and the State
of Alaska has been forced to take over the past two years will clearly switch to an offensive position with regard to promoting energy exploration legislation. The new make up of the House on the other hand will clearly benefit
Alaskas views. Speaker-Elect Boehner has visited the Arctic oil fields in the past and is strongly supportive of State of Alaska exploration initiatives. The House over the past three decades has past ANWR legislation 12 times many
votes of which Speaker-Elect Boehner has participated in. Of particular interest in the next few months will be the make up of the Senate Energy Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee. The Senate Energy
Committee will still be controlled by Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico with the expected Lisa Murkowski as Minority chair. The position of and seniority of Murkowski will be beneficial strategically for promotion
and passage of Alaska energy legislation. Should this makeup be changed for any reason between now and January 6th, prospects will possibly not be as good. In the House, Rep. Doc Hastings will decide if he will continue with
Natural Resources Cmte. or move to the Rules Committee. His replacement, if it happens, would probably be Sam Bishop of Utah who will take the helm as the full committee chairman. Rep. Bishop, like Rep. Hastings, has been a
strong supporter of ANWR and Alaska oil and gas legislation and will likely push pro development bills to the floor for vote. Much to the dismay of many Democrats and Republicans in Alaska, the partisan
politicizing of issues such as ANWR in the US Congress has prevented much progress in the State of Alaska. Fully 60% of the State of Alaska is
controlled by the Federal Government and Congress not by the State. Near all of new prospect land on and offshore is controlled by Congress and the Dept. of Interior and
with the flow level of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System TAPS nearing critically low levels the need to approve pro-development legislation on Capitol Hill could not be more immediate for the State. The Alaska State Legislature has
near unanimously and consistently supported oil and gas exploration issues on and off shore in the Arctic without any partisanship. It has been extraordinarily frustrating to see
how these issues have been turned into politicized poker chips on Capitol Hill greatly [slowing] positive
growth and change in the State of Alaska. One third of the economy of the State of Alaska is based on oil, with 87% of the tax base coming from oil. The future exploration of OCS
leases, ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska will be dependent on successful passage of legislation in Congress.
Arctic drilling costs PC drawn into the climate change debate
Andrew Holland is the senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project, a non-
partisan national security think tank 9-26-2013 America is failing to meet challenges of a changing
Arctic http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meet-challenges-changing-
arctic DA: 6/7/14

Americas Arctic, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness have made it difficult for us to take
advantage of the vast resourcesand enormous opportunity of the region. Today, the Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history.
Open water is darker colored than ice, so it collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below historical averages and maintains a
downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tippi ng point that will eventually lead to completely ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil
fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources
under the waters surface and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel
resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our
"Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer
sea ice is completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska. But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies
that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is
insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe navigation north of the Bering Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy
exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as "only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened
international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships fromaround the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker
Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust sol ely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji Sekimizu, the
Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action, Russia will certainly set the standards. The United States has not fully
claimed territory in the Arctic to the fullest extent of International Law because the U.S. Congress refuses to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The other
four nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole. They are party t o decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out
because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally, we need a military presence in order to maintain the security in our sea lanes and to
provide for disaster response. Today, neither the U.S. Navy nor the U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or t he political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on strategic patrols). The United
States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed
FY14 budget includes $2 million for plans for a new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million. In todays federal budget environment, even the $2 million outlay is uncertain. In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest
icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently constructing what will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly committed to expanding their naval
presence. Perhaps it is because of the political paralysis on climate policyinCongress and in state governments that it is impossible to have a
rational debate about the impacts of climate change. So long as a large portion of our political system refuses to acknowledge the very
existence climate change -- even in the face of clear evidence across Alaska, we will not be able to make the investments necessary to take advantage of a
changing Arctic.
Link Offshore Drilling Feinstein
Feinstein opposes offshore drilling shes highly influential
Mike Dunmyer, Executive Director Oceans Champions, 2012 Ocean Champions Endorses Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CC0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oceanchampions.org%2Fpdfs%2FFeinsteinPR_000.pdf&ei=ZB2fU_G
4EoemyASN-ILIBQ&usg=AFQjCNHdAhIOYBCJp9QjymuEIrXhe_lUMA&sig2=vth0Al5RL12LZeJhEsqsaw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw&cad=rja DA: 6/16/14

Ocean Champions, which works to build political power for the oceans by helping to elect pro-ocean candidates to the U.S. Congress, proudly endorses Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). As a
respected senior appropriator and Chair of an Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein is very influential, said David Wilmot, Ocean Champions President
and Co-Founder. Were very pleased that she has often used that influence to help move important ocean legislation. Since first being elected in 1992, Senator Feinstein has built a strong
record on ocean health, and has provided vocal leadership on important issues, such as restoration of the San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe. Senator Feinstein has sponsored
and cosponsored a number of bills to prevent expansion of offshore drilling, while working to expand the boundaries of the Cordell
Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The Senator has also thrown her weight behind legislation to help salmon and billfish, and helped pass the Shark Conservation Act of 2009. She is also
passionate about addressing the growing problem of marine debris, epitomized by the discovery of the great Pacific garbage patch. "I'm deeply honored by the endorsement of Oceans Champions
and look forward to continuing to work to promote healthy beaches and oceans," said Feinstein. Senator Feinstein has established herself as a highly
effective representative for California residents. Today, were pleased to be able to recognize her for her leadership on ocean issues.
Link Offshore Drilling Leahy
Leahy opposes offshore drilling environmental concerns
Patrick Leahy, Senator from Vermont, 2014 Energy Legislation
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/energy-legislation DA: 6/16/14

Offshore Drilling

While Senator Leahy recognizes the need to harness domestic energy resources, he does not support oil and
gas exploration at the expense of supporting clean energy resources that will provide a long-term solution to our nations energy crisis. He
believes oil and gas legislation must protect Americas environment and include strong safety and oversight provisions. As we have learned the
hard way, offshore drilling presents tremendous environmental and economic harms when something goes wrong. Senator Leahy
will continue to fight to ensure the right oversight mechanisms are in place so if accidents do happen, those responsible pay for the cleanup. Measures to
expand drilling by undermining new offshore drilling safety regulations imposed after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are putting coastal residents at
risk of another accident.

Link Offshore Nuclear
Offshore nuclear causes controversy public and environmental concerns after
Fukushima
Matt Novak is the author of the Paleofuture blog, which can now be found on Gizmodo. 2-26-2013
The American Plan to Build Nuclear Power Plants in the Ocean
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean-
27801262/?no-ist DA: 6/8/14

A new nuclear power plant hasnt been built in the U.S. in over 30 years. But in the 1970s nuclear power was still in many ways a low-emissions dream of the future.
In 1975, nuclear power accounted for about 4 percent of the electrical energy generated in the United States. But some people at that time were predicting that by the dawn of the 21st century, nuclear power might supply over 50 percent of electrical energy needed in this country. (Nuclear
power currently produces 19.2 percent of electricity in the U.S.) In the early 1970s, plans were set into motion which would have seen eight to ten offshore nuclear
power plants built by 1999. Each power plant was envisioned to produce 1,150 megawatts of electricity, enough for a city of about 600,000 at the time. The plan was devised by Offshore Power Systems (OPS), a partnership between Tenneco and Westinghouse. In
1972, a New Jersey utility company contracted with OPS to build an offshore nuclear power plant in Jacksonville, Florida, and tow it to New Jersey. The $1.1 billion contract to build the plant was even signed at sea aboard a yacht just off the New Jersey coast. The power plants would
have been gigantic barges anchored a few miles off the American coastline, starting with Brigantine, New Jersey. Why build a power plant at sea? Nuclear power plants require a tremendous amount of water for cooling and moving nuclear power plants offshore provides easy access to water
without raising the ire of potential protesters on land. Gordon P. Selfridges 1975 paper Floating Nuclear Power Plants: A Fleet on the Horizon? notes the concern over access to water: Since nuclear power plants have a tremendous impact on the surrounding community, problems and
confrontations on land have contributed to the impending move offshore. Physically, the plants consume enormous amounts of water for cooling and steam production and emit low-level radiation. With reference to the once-through cooling water necessary for the plants operation, one
study has projected that the demand for such coolant will encompass over fifty percent of the entire runoff fromthe continental United States in only twenty-five years unless the plants are moved offshore. The possible ecological impact of running half our river water through nuclear power
plants has led many to conclude that such plants would be better built in the coastal zone. News reports from the time indicated that officials expressed a desire to have less of an impact on the environment, which is a more pleasant way to say that its probably not good to have half of the
nations water running through nuclear power plants. Officials were concerned that states friendly to nuclear power (like New Jersey) were running out of vital riverfront property on which to build plants at least without angering environmental groups. From the September 19, 1972, News
Journal in Mansfield, Ohio: The stated reason for building the offshore power plant was to minimize its impact on the environment, but officials privately admitted that the move to the sea was motivated by the fact that New Jersey may be the first state in the United State to run out of
riverfront property for power plants. This is the only reason for putting this plant in the ocean, said Edward C. Raney, a Cornell University biologist and a public service consultant. Its the only way to justify the expense of locating at sea. But the project
met with delay after delay, most stymied by growing public concern over the environmental impact
and risk of accidents with nuclear power plants. In 1976, then-candidate for President Jimmy Carter called for a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in the United States. Public opinion was already turning against nuclear power in the mid-1970s but
the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania on March 28, 1979, permanently altered the way that Americans perceived nuclear power. In 1982, a federal nuclear licensing board gave temporary approval for the OPS programto go through i n New Jersey. But by then OPS was barely
hobbling along. In 1975, Tenneco had withdrawn from the project leaving just Westinghouse at the helm. And by the early 1980s all of the utility companies with which OPS signed contract had long since cancelled their orders on account of the delays. Over the next decade OPS began
liquidating everything and laying off most of their staff of 1,500 in Jacksonville. In 1990 Westinghouse sold what was then the worlds largest crane 38 stories tall, and built for $15 million to a Chinese shipbuilding company for a measly $3 million. Today,
environmentalists who once shunned nuclear power are giving it a second look. But with the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima on March 11, 2011, the world is again
concerned about the very real potential for accidents especially when it comes to shared resources like the ocean.
Offshore nuclear uniquely links bureaucracy and political backlash
Thomas Wellock, NRC Historian, 9-26-2013 Waves of Uncertainty: The Demise of the Floating
Reactor Concept (Part II), http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2013/09/26/waves-of-uncertainty-the-
demise-of-the-floating-reactor-concept-part-ii/ DA: 6/12/14

Offshore Power Systems, apparently, did not appreciate that putting land-based reactors out to sea was bound to raise new safety, environmental and
regulatory questions . Concerns about ship collisions, off-shore fishing grounds, barge sinking and the challenge of creating a new
regulatory process for floating reactors were just some of the unique issues facing regulators. Even the trade press raised concerns. Nuclear News worried about the
incredibly tangled mass of overlapping jurisdictions, state, national, and international law, inter-agency authority that included new players such as the U.S. Coast Guard. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Drawing from a 1978
GAO report. Events conspired to worsen OPSs prospects. The oil crisis that began in 1973 made construction financing expensive and slowed electricity consumption. Facing slack demand, PSEG postponed delivery of the first
floating plant from 1981 to 1985 and later to 1988. Tenneco backed out of the OPS partnership in 1975. With the entire enterprise threatened, Westinghouse and the Florida Congressional delegation asked the federal government to
purchase four plants. But, the prospect of bailing out OPS did not appeal to officials in the Ford Administration. The purchase proposal died. Floating reactors did not solve
regulatory or political problems . The production facility in Jacksonville needed an NRC manufacturing license. There were so many technical and regulatory
uncertainties that the licensing review ran three years behind schedule. A 1978 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office criticized the NRC for what it believed was an incomplete safety review, particularly for
not accounting for impacts on the ocean ecosystem during an accident where a melting reactor core broke through the bottom of the barge. Local and state opposition to the plant was
intense . Nearby counties voted in non-binding referendums 2 to 1 against the Atlantic Generating Station, and the New Jersey legislature refused to introduce a bill to turn the offshore site over to PSEG. Westinghouse held
out hope for a brighter future; PSEG didnt. In late 1978, the utility announced it canceled its orders for all four of its floating plants. Slack demand, it noted, was the only reason for the cancellations. We simply will not need these
units in the foreseeable future, a utility official admitted. Others blamed excessive regulation. In March 1979, John OLeary, a Department of Energy deputy secretary, provided to the White House a grimeven alarming report, as
one staffer said, that the NRC delays with the OPS license were symptomatic of a larger problem. It has become impossible to build energy plants in America
OLeary said, due to excessive environmental regulations and an indecisive bureaucracy . Environmental laws, OLeary complained, had created a chain
of hurdles which effectively kill energy projects and damage to the nations economy. He wanted presidential action. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Drawing from a 1978
GAO report. Events rendered OLearys plea for action moot. Two and a half weeks later the Three Mile Island accident occurred, ending any hope of an imminent industry rebound. The accident raised
anew questions about a core melt accident and further delayed the manufacturing license. The NRC did not issue a license until 1982. In 1984, Westinghouse formally abandoned the
OPS enterprise, dismantled the Jacksonville facility, and sold its huge crane to China. Going to sea, OPS discovered, did not allow it to escape the problems that beset
nuclear power. A novel technological solution could not overcome public distrust and economic, technical and regulatory
uncertainty. We shall see how Russia handles the challenges.
Despite congressional support for nuclear plan requires massive PC to overcome
GOP opposition to cooperation and dem opposition to nuclear
Trembath, 11
Alex, Policy Fellow @ Americans For Energy Leadership, 2/4,
http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/the-nuclear-option-in-a-post-partisan-approach-on-energy/

The extreme reluctance of Republicans to cooperate with Democrats over the last two years is only the
first step, as any legislation will have to overcome Democrats traditional opposition to nuclear
energy. However, here again there is reason for optimism. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry bucked their partys long-time aversion to nuclear in
a precursor bill to APA, and Kerry continued working on the issue during 2010. Jeff Bingaman, in a speech earlier this week, reversed his
position on the issue by calling for the inclusion of nuclear energy provisions in a clean energy standard. The Huffington Post reports that the
White House reached out to his committee [Senate Energy] to help develop the clean energy plan through legislation. This development in itself
potentially mitigates two of the largest obstacle standing in the way of progress on comprehensive energy legislation: lack of a bill, and lack of
high profile sponsors. Democrats can also direct Section 48C of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 towards nuclear
technology, which provides a tax credit for companies that engage in clean tech manufacturing. Democrats should not give up on their policy
goals simply because they no longer enjoy broad majorities in both Houses, and Republicans should not spend all their time holding symbolic
repeal votes on the Obama Administrations accomplishments. The lame-duck votes in December on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, the tax cut deal
and START indicate that at least a few Republicans are willing to work together with Democrats in a divided Congress, and that is precisely what
nuclear energy needs moving forward. It will require an agressive push from the White House , and a
concerted effort from both parties leadership, but the road for forging bipartisan legislation is not an impassable
one. The politician with perhaps the single greatest leverage over the future of nuclear energy is President
Obama, and his rhetoric matches the challenge posed by our aging and poisonous energy infrastructure. This is our generations
Sputnik moment, announced Obama recently. Echoing the calls of presidents past, the President used his State of the Union podium to
signal a newly invigorated industrialism in the United States. He advocated broadly for renewed investment in infrastructure, education, and
technological innovation. And he did so in a room with many more members of the opposition party than at any point during the first half of his
term. The eagerness of the President to combine left and right agendas can hopefully match the hyper-partisan bitterness that dominates our
political culture, and nuclear power maybe one sector of our economy to benefit from his political leadership.
Even popular next gen nuclear incentives drain capital now get drawn into
broader energy spending fight
Nelson, 9/14/12

Gabriel Nelson and Hannah Northey, E&E reporters, Greenwire, 9/24/12

NUCLEAR ENERGY: DOE funding for small reactors languishes as parties clash on debt It's not just wind and
solar projects that are waiting for federal help as Congress duels over the importance of putting taxpayer
dollars on the line for cutting-edge energy projects. Some of the nation's largest nuclear power companies
are anxious to hear whether they will get a share of a $452 million pot from the Department of Energy for a new breed of
reactors that the industry has labeled as a way to lessen the safety risks and construction costs of new nuclear power plants. The grant program for
these "small modular reactors," which was announced in January, would mark the official start of a major U.S. foray into the technology even as
rising construction costs -- especially when compared to natural-gas-burning plants -- cause many power companies to shy away from nuclear
plants. DOE received four bids before the May 21 deadline from veteran reactor designers Westinghouse Electric Co. and Babcock & Wilcox
Co., as well as relative newcomers Holtec International Inc. and NuScale Power LLC. Now the summer has ended with no announcement from
DOE, even though the agency said it would name the winners two months ago. As the self-imposed deadline passed, companies started hearing
murmurs that a decision could come in September, or perhaps at the end of the year. To observers within the industry, it seems
that election-year calculations may have sidelined the contest. "The rumors are a'flying," said Paul Genoa, director of policy development at the
Nuclear Energy Institute, in an interview last week. "All we can imagine is that this is now caught up in politics , and the campaign
has to decide whether these things are good for them to announce, and how." Small modular reactors do not seem to be lacking in political
support. The nuclear lobby has historically courted both Democrats and Republicans and still sees itself as being in a strong position with key
appropriators on both sides of the aisle. Likewise, top energy officials in the Obama administration have hailed the promise of the new reactors,
and they haven't shown any signs of a change of heart. DOE spokeswoman Jen Stutsman said last week that the department is still reviewing
applications, but she did not say when a decision will be made. "This is an important multiyear research and development effort, and we want to
make sure we take the time during the review process to get the decision right," she wrote in an email. That the grants haven't been
given out during a taut campaign season, even as President Obama announces agency actions ranging from trade cases to creating new
national monuments to make the case for his re-election, may be a sign that the reactors are ensnared in a broader feud
over energy spending . Grant recipients would develop reactor designs with an eye toward eventually turning those into pilot
projects -- and the loan guarantees that these first-of-a-kind nuclear plants are using today to get financing
would be blocked under the "No More Solyndras" bill that passed the House last week (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
Congress has given the grant program $67 million for fiscal 2012, shy of the amount that would be needed annually to reach full funding. If the
"sequester" kicks in at year's end and slashes DOE funding or the balance of power changes in Washington, the amount of money available could
dwindle yet again. Even the staunchest supporters of the federal nuclear program are acknowledging it is a
tough time to promise a $452 million check. Former Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who pushed for new reactors
as chairman of both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said during a
brief interview Tuesday that well-designed loan guarantees won't cost too much because they get repaid over time. The cost could be borne by a
"tiny little tax" on the nuclear industry, he said. But when it comes to straight-up spending, like the grants that would support
getting these cutting-edge reactors ready for their first demonstrations, the solution may not be so clear . While
some Republicans remain staunch supporters of funding for the nuclear power industry, there are others
who label the government subsidies as a waste of taxpayer dollars. "It's awful hard , with the needs
that are out there and the debt that haunts us, to figure out how you're going to establish priorities ," said
Domenici, who has advocated for the deployment of new nuclear reactors as a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
"I can't stand here and tell you that I know how to do that."
Link Offshore Nuclear SMRs
SMRs drain capital politically nuclear
Peter Fairley, IEEE Spectrum, May 2010, "Downsizing Nuclear Power Plants,
spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/downsizing-nuclear-power-plants/0 DA: 6/11/14

However, there are political objections to SMRs. Precisely because they are more affordable, they may
well increase the risk of proliferation by bringing the cost and power output of nuclear reactors within the
reach of poorer countries. Russias first SMR, which the nuclear engineering group Rosatom expects to complete next year, is
of particular concern. The Akademik Lomonosov is a floating nuclear power plant sporting two 35-MW reactors, which Rosatom expects
to have tethered to an Arctic oil and gas operation by 2012. The reactors portability prompted Greenpeace Russia to call
this floating plant the worlds most dangerous nuclear project in a decade. SMRs may be smaller than todays
reactors. But, politically at least, theyre just as nuclear.
Forced tradeoffs ensure fight on SMR incentives drawn into broader budget
battles and swamps bipart support
Margaret Ryan, Energy AOL reporter, 10-10-2011 Bipartisan Energy Options Hostage in Congress
http://energy.aol.com/2011/10/10/bipartisan-energy-options-hostage-in-congress/ DA: 6/11/14

Bipartisan Energy Options 'Hostage' in Congress Room for bipartisan agreement on energy issues has
narrowed drastically since the new Congress took office in January, but there are still a few areas where progress might be made,
according to Robert Simon, majority staff director of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. Bipartisan energy bills have
been held "hostage," he said in 2009-10 by cap and trade advocates and now by budget hawks. And it's not just
energy Simon noted the current Congress has passed just 69 bills since January, a fifth of the output of what President Harry Truman in 1947
dubbed "the do-nothing Congress." Speaking to the US Association of Energy Economists conference in Washington, DC October 10, Simon
said his committee had crafted bipartisan agreement on a range of issues in the last Congress, in 2009-10. Read more notes from the conference:
USAEE Notebook: DOE Weighing Export Price Effects. The panel voted out bills supporting a Clean Energy Development
Authority, a national Renewable Energy Standard, facilitation of transmission siting and electric vehicle infrastructure, expanded energy research,
small nuclear reactor support, and efficiency improvements in manufacturing, building and appliances. Also supported last
congressional session were cybersecurity for electric grids, expansion of off-shore drilling and improved drilling safety standards, more
renewables on federal lands, and support for carbon capture and storage pilot projects. This session, he said, the areas of bipartisan
agreement have narrowed to energy efficiency, expansion of existing hydropower, CCS projects, advanced vehicle research and nuclear
research. The committee's bills never got floor votes in the previous Congress because advocates of carbon cap
and trade held other energy bills "hostage" in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to force a vote on that House-passed measure,
Simon said. In this Congress, energy bills are hostage to the financial debate, he said, with budget hawks are
insisting that even authorizations for any new or increased program include reductions in other
authorizations. Every program has its constituency , he noted, so different energies are pitted against
each other. In the past, those adjustments have been made in appropriations bills, he said.
SMR subsidies are uniquely unpopular drawn into larger energy spending fights
Gabriel Nelson and Hannah Northey, E&E reporters, 9-24-2012 DOE Funding for Small Reactors
Languishes as Parties Clash on Debt http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/09/24/3 DA:
6/11/14

Likewise, top energy officials in the Obama administration have hailed the promise of the new reactors, and they
haven't shown any signs of a change of heart. DOE spokeswoman Jen Stutsman said last week that the department is still reviewing
applications, but she did not say when a decision will be made. "This is an important multiyear research and development effort, and we want
to make sure we take the time during the review process to get the decision right," she wrote in an email. That the grants haven't been given out during a
taut campaign season, even as President Obama announces agency actions ranging from trade cases to creating new national monuments to make the case for his re-
election, may be a sign that the reactors are ensnared in a broader feud over energy spending .Grant
recipients would develop reactor designs with an eye toward eventually turning those into pilot projects --
and the loan guarantees that these first-of-a-kind nuclear plants are using today to get financing would be blocked under the "No More Solyndras"
bill that passed the House last week (Greenwire, Sept. 14). Congress has given the grant program $67 million for fiscal
2012, shy of the amount that would be needed annually to reach full funding. If the "sequester" kicks in at year's end and
slashes DOE funding or the balance of power changes in Washington, the amount of money available could dwindle yet again. Even the staunchest supporters of
the federal nuclear program are acknowledging it is a tough time to promise a $452 million check. Former
Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who pushed for new reactors as chairman of both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and t he Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee, said during a brief interview Tuesday that well-designed loan guarantees won't cost too much because they get repaid over time. The cost could be borne by a "tiny little tax" on
the nuclear industry, he said. But when it comes to straight-up spending, like the grants that would support getting these
cutting-edge reactors ready for their first demonstrations, the solution may not be so clear. While
some Republicans remain staunch supporters of funding for the nuclear power industry, there are others
who label the government subsidies as a waste of taxpayer dollars. "It's awful hard, with the needs that
are out there and the debt that haunts us, to figure out how you're going to establish priorities," said Domenici, who
has advocated for the deployment of new nuclear reactors as a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "I can't stand here and tell you that I know how to do that."

Link Offshore Wind General
Offshore wind costs PC Obama pushes despite controversy
Todd Sperry, CNN correspondent, 8-16-2012 Wind farm gets US approval despite controversy
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/wind-farm-faa/index.html DA: 6/8/14

A massive offshore wind farm planned for Cape Cod that has generated fierce political and legal controversy has cleared all federal and
state regulatory hurdles. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape Wind project, the first of its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain conditions.
Previous agency approvals were challenged in court, including a ruling last year that forced the latest FAA safety evaluation. A leading opposition group said another legal challenge was possible. The Obama administration
first approved the power generating project, which has now been on the books for more than a decade, in April 2010 despite opposition from residents. Opponents over the years have included the late Sen.
Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family compound is in Hyannis Port. 125 years of wind power Critics claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would threaten
wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some local residents also fear it will drive down property values. The administration
has pushed a "green energy" agenda nationally as a way to create jobs and lessen U.S. dependence on oil imports. That effort, however, has been sharply
criticized by congressional Republicans who have said certain high-profile projects are politically driven. They
also have skewered certain Energy Department programs that extended millions in taxpayer loans and other aid to alternative energy
companies or projects that faltered or did not meet expectations. The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is
investigating the political assertions around Cape Wind as part of a broader review of "green energy" projects supported by the administration. The panel's chairman, California's Darrell Issa, wrote
President Barack Obama last week saying that White House interest in the Massachusetts project is "well known" and that the FAA had been under political pressure to
approve it.
Plan perceived as picking winners triggers GOP backlash and spills over to new
controversy over offshore drilling
Zack Coleman, E2 Wire THE HILLs Environment and Energy Blog, 11-9-2012,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267041-gop-senators-press-interior-on-offshore-wind-deal DA:
6/11/14

GOP senators accuse Interior of playing favorites in offshore wind deal Two GOP senators are accusing the Interior
Department of playing favorites by offering Atlantic waters for wind farms but not oil and gas development. At issue
is a lease for developing commercial wind power in federal waters off the Delaware coast. The area in question is off limits
to oil-and-gas drillers in President Obamas five-year offshore drilling plan. GOP Sens. David Vitter (La.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) sent a
letter Friday to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking him to evaluate the economics of the potential wind farm against a
comparably sized oil-and-gas deal. The administration has a habit of picking energy-industry winners
and losers , and we want an explanation. Secretary Salazar should at least be able to defend the economics of the lease sale for wind energy.
For example, the federal government receives significant revenue from royalties for offshore oil and gas
production in the form of rents, royalties, bonus bids and taxes. Can the same be said for this offshore wind project? Vitter said in a
Friday statement. The administration has cited environmental reasons for the restriction on Atlantic and Pacific offshore
drilling. It says its plan still permits exploration for 75 percent of identified reserves. Obama revised his offshore drilling plan following the 2010 BP oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico. When Interior released the administration's final leasing plan in June, it described the blueprint as "responsible" and "cautious."
Republicans in both the House and the Senate have criticized Interior for its handling of offshore drilling
in response to the 2010 spill. They say Interior acted too quickly by imposing a drilling freeze in the Gulf of Mexico, and complain that rules instituted since then are
overly burdensome. GOP lawmakers say Obama's five-year offshore plan is too limited. They want to open the
Atlantic and Pacific to drilling, saying drillers could unlock previously undiscovered reserves. Vitter and Alexander said
increasing offshore oil-and-gas leases would generate new revenue that could help pay down the deficit.
They said oil and gas firms would pay handsomely for the right to explore those areas, and noted they would owe federal royalties on anything they dredge up. The
senators wanted to compare that to what Interior offered NRG Bluewater Wind Delaware LLC for the wind lease sale.
Offshore wind causes controversy GOP and environmentalists backlash to Obama
push
Darrell Delamaide is a writer, editor and journalist with more than 30 years' experience. He is the
author of three books and has written for magazines, newspapers, and online media. A specialist in
business and finance, he lived in Europe for many years, has traveled widely, and has a master's degree
from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. 4-30-2010 U.S. Approval of
Cape Cod Offshore Wind Project Will Not End Controversy http://oilprice.com/Alternative-
Energy/Wind-Power/U.S.-Approval-Of-Cape-Cod-Offshore-Wind-Project-Will-Not-End-
Controversy.html DA: 6/8/14

The Obama administration approved the controversial Cape Wind project, which calls for a wind farm of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound and will be the first
offshore wind project in the country. But it is sure to generate more controversy as opposition was voiced by
everyone from environmental groups to Native American tribes to Cape Cod residents, who are disturbed at the prospect that they
will see the wind turbines as specks on the horizon. The turbines will be five miles from shore at their closest point, and 14 miles and their most distant. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy opposed
the project because the turbines will be visible from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, however, welcomed the project and was present at the Boston
announcement of the federal government approval. The state wants to have 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made it clear that the decision is
final and that the administration is confident it can withstand the court challenges that are sure to come. The project has been under review for nearly 10
years. There are about a dozen other offshore projects being contemplated, most of them off the Eastern seaboard north of Chesapeake Bay. A number of northern European countries are
already operating offshore wind farms in the north Atlantic. The Cape Wind farm is expected to begin generating electricity by the end of 2012, pending the outcome of the legal challenges. It
will provide sufficient electricity for three-quarters of the 225,000 residents of Cape Cod. An attempt to block the project by the American Council on Historical Preservation, which cited the
historical value of the Kennedy compound and other sites on the Cape, was opposed by Patrick and governors from Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey and
Maryland. Environmentalists oppose the project because it interferes with habitats of numerous marine animals and birds, and because
of its visual impact on the scenery.
Offshore wind funding causes controversy GOP budget conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progresss
Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is
the Public Lands Project Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public
Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-ways-that-looming-budget-cuts-to-
public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-all-americans/ DA: 6/10/14

On January 2, 2013 a set of large, across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011.
These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major
domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands. The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of
budget conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe super committeewas unable to come to an
agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so,
federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2 trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered a
plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only
an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national
security. Sequestrations impacts could be equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation. Sequestration will have a
bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer
places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional
sources of revenue must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge he convinced many in Congress to sign
promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy
government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can
move forward. But unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are going to have to start making do
without some of these vital services we now consider fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the
Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might mean, including: Less accurate
weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and
Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no
doubt Americans will feel the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites, firefighters, American-made energy, and
hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for
these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and
security (weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber,
grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-
1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for conservation should not
be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order
to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing these necessary services to the American people, congressional Republicans must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue
increases and spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans
due to the economic and societal benefits they provide. Attempting to balance the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to
increase revenue means we will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer places to hunt, fish, and
relax. Impact on public lands and oceans The White House Office of Management and Budget released a report in September determining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would
be a reduction of 8.2 percent for discretionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that has a defense
function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to
individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where appropriations are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Service operations budget will lose $183
million, but it does not specify which services or which parks will bear the brunt of this reductionthose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies
might makefor example, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a
number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the agencies provide. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most important and evident investments that the federal government
makes is in weather prediction. But sequestration could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If this happens, Americans
will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nations primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts
you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Centers storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of global climate change. Even the Weather Channels forecasts come from this
agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting capabilities. As accurate as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to
be, European models predicted its landfall days before U.S. models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a week
after Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2
percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nations aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending
levels, to buy replacement satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 monthsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During this time, the accuracy of
advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account
would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and Budgets projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and
warnings, potentially causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development Energy development is an important and legitimate use of our lands and
oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore) provide substantial natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural
gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands and waters. Sequestration, however, could potentially hinder government agencies from planning,
studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently,
the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it
comes to offshore wind development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts Nantucket Sound. And after completing the
first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers, the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be
drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and ocean management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and help build
fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The
stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the
Interiors Bureau of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and minerals management, including permit
processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part
devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by $105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy
projects on public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by $13 million in
fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency manages exploration, science, leasing, permitting, and development of
offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental
Shelf.

Link Offshore Wind Tax Credit
Wind incentives drain PC causes massive congressional budget fight
Hannah Northey, E&E reporter, E & E News, 2-2-2012 lexis

Murkowski said the issue of whether Congress should extend clean energy tax credits for wind producers is
going to be a thorny issue in such a tight budgetary environment. "How we're going to allow for
continuation or extension, whether it's [production tax credit] or otherwise, that's going to be subject of
great debate going forward," she said. "I happen to think in many of these areas, these have been exceptionally helpful for us, and I'd like
to see the extensions."
Wind incentives drain PC the issue is politicized, it can barely get enough
congressional support and only as rider to other bills
Jennifer Jacobs and Jason Noble, Des Moines Register, 8-15-2012 Wind credit likely to stay
http://www.governorswindenergycoalition.org/?p=3110 DA: 6/5/14

All the huff and puff on the campaign trail in Iowa aside, it's likely that the wind energy tax credit will pass this fall,
Iowans who follow the issue say. It's a topic that Iowa voters typically don't bring up. But President Barack Obama loves to talk about it because it gives him an opening to bash GOP rival Mitt
Romney for being opposed to an incentive that all of Iowa's top politicians consider important. "If he really wants to learn something about wind," Obama said Tuesday, "all he's got to do is pay
attention to what you've been doing here in Iowa." Obama is keeping up a drumbeat on the issue at every campaign stop. At a wind farm in Haverhill on Tuesday, he said the tax credits help
create jobs while the rest of the country benefits from "clean American energy." Iowa's congressional delegation is cautiously optimistic the
wind production tax credit will pass after the Nov. 6 elections as part of a larger bill, staffers told The Des Moines Register
on Tuesday. All seven in the delegation support the tax credit. But Republican political operatives in Iowa say Obama has politicized the
issue . They say he's trying to manufacture an issue where there isn't one - and that he's just trying to
distract from his own record on jobs and the economy. The debate on the campaign trail highlights that presidential candidates sometimes play up
differences that are real, but may not have real effect on any legislation. Action on the tax credit won't happen before the election, aides for Iowa's congressional delegation said. After
Nov. 6, when there's more clarity to the political landscape, language is likely to get tacked onto a bigger bill and squeak
through amid debate about the farm bill and George W. Bush-era tax cuts, staffers said.
Link OTEC
OTEC is unpopular in Congress environmentalists, costs, and bureaucracy link
alone turns investment
Becca Friedman, Doctoral Student, Department of Government at Georgetown University, formerly
Research Associate at Council on Foreign Relations Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion, Harvard Political Review, 3-2014 , http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/OTEC-
News/Examining-the-future-of-Ocean-Thermal-Energy-Conversion.html DA: 6/5/14

Although it may seem like an environmentalists fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend that the technology to provide a truly infinite source
of power to the United States already exists in the form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and
promising prototypes, however, a lack of governmental support and the need for risky capital investment have stalled
OTEC in its research and development phase. Regardless, oceanic energy experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a Department of Energy team on oceanic energy, told the HPR, If we
can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC] for electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000 times
more than the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any other renewable energy that can compare with
OTEC. The Science of OTEC French physicist George Claude first explored the science of OTEC in the early twentieth century, and he built
an experimental design in 1929. Unfortunately for Claude, the high maintenance needed for an OTEC plant, especially given the frequency of
storms in tropical ocean climates, caused him to abandon the project. Nevertheless, his work demonstrated that the difference in temperature
between the surface layer and the depths of the ocean was enough to generate power, using the warmer water as the heat source and the cooler
water as a heat sink. OTEC takes warm water and pressurizes it so that it becomes steam, then uses the steam to power a turbine which creates
power, and completes the cycle by using the cold water to return the steam to its liquid state. Huge Capital, Huge Risks Despite the sound
science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the
main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale plant has never been
built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a
commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the
Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTECs main liability. Weve talked to
inventors and other constituents over the years, and its still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate
forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty, Penney told the HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly
vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by
mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition, there is a
risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to rust or corrode or fill up with seaweed or mud, according to
a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman. Even environmentalists have impeded OTECs development.
According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the
pristine marine landscape, they think pollution. Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it
seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a
company specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, Years ago in the 80s, there was a small [governmental] program for
OTEC and it was abandonedThat philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few people in the Department
of Energy who have blocked government funding for this. Its not the Democrats, not the Republicans. Its a
bureaucratic issue. OTEC is not completely off the governments radar, however. This past year, for the first time in a decade,
Congress debated reviving the oceanic energy program in the energy bill, although the proposal was
ultimately defeated. OTEC even enjoys some support on a state level. Hawaii s National Energy Laboratory, for example, conducts
OTEC research around the islands. For now, though, American interests in OTEC promise to remain largely academic. The Naval Research
Academy and Oregon State University are conducting research programs off the coasts of Oahu and Oregon , respectively.
Costs PC Dems oppose
PGB 8 (Politics & Government Business, Blunt: Congress Now the Only Obstacle Between American
People and Abundant, Affordable and Homegrown Energy, 7-28, Lexis)

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today ahead of the president's expected announcement that he will lift
an 18-year old executive ban on responsible energy exploration along our nation's Outer Continental Shelf. The decision leaves Congress as the
last remaining hurdle to producing billions of barrels of American oil -- and trillions of cubic feet of American natural gas -- for the American
people. "With the president's decision today to lift the ban on the responsible development of America's deep-ocean
energy, only one obstacle remains between the American people and accessing the abundant reserves of homegrown energy that
are rightfully theirs: Democrats in Washington, D.C. "Unfortunately, reports indicate the only energy-related legislation we'll see this week
is a bill to 'unlock' an energy field we've already been exploring for 25 years, along with an effort to advance the once-failed, and thoroughly
discredited 'Use It or Lose It' language. Needless to say, neither plan will help the millions of American families struggling in a world of $4 gas,
$150 oil, and prohibitively high electricity rates. "Back in 1990 when this executive ban was first established, oil sold for $18 and $1.20 could get
you a gallon of gas just about anywhere in the country. Almost a generation later, our nation's energy outlook has changed more
than anyone could've predicted back then - but reflexive Democratic arguments against responsible, homegrown energy
production have not.

Link Mexico Hydrocarbon Treaty
Hydrocarbon Treaty costs capital environmentalists and partisan disputes
David J. Unger is a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor, covering energy for the Monitor's
Energy Voices. He attended Oberlin College for undergraduate studies, and received his masters of
science in journalism from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism 10-1-2013
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/1001/Congress-could-undercut-US-
Mexico-joint-drilling-deal-in-Gulf DA: 6/5/14

US and Mexican efforts to jointly develop offshore oil and gas fields along their maritime border in the Gulf of
Mexico are being held up by a dispute in Congress . For Mexico, those efforts represent an opportunity to acquire the technology and investment it needs
to develop hard-to-reach regions. Encapsulated in a 2012 agreement signed by both nations and ratified by Mexico, the push comes as Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto pushes for reforms
that would open up the country's state-owned oil company to foreign investment. For the US, the agreement not yet ratified by Congress promises an economic boost. It bolsters a growing
North American energy largesse that stretches from Canada's oil sands through shale plays in the US and down to deepwater reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. There's just one holdup.
Congress hasn't ratified the pact the US-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement because the House and Senate disagree
on whether oil and gas producers should be required to publicly disclose their payments to foreign
governments. On Tuesday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a meeting to try to move forward on the agreement. "It is the hope that, through this Agreement
and the proposed energy reforms in Mexico, that the energy revolution the U.S. is currently experiencing can extend throughout the Western Hemisphere," Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon said in
a statement prepared for the Senate committee hearing. "This would make our region more competitive and less reliant on politically tumultuous states for obtaining energy." For decades, the two
countries have negotiated over how to divvy up resources along the US-Mexico maritime border and in areas between the two economic zones. In 2000, a moratorium was placed on drilling in
the region to allow time to develop a coordinated plan. As the decade wore on, exploration on the US side moved farther and farther offshore, toward the maritime border. Concern grew in
Mexico that rigs on the US side could start siphoning oil from the Mexico side the "efecto popote," or, "straw effect." Meanwhile, energy companies felt hindered by the legal uncertainties of
tapping reservoirs that straddle the border. "The motive for the US is 'Were ready to drill, but we don't want to drill ourselves into a legal nightmare,'" said George Baker, publisher of Mexico
Energy Intelligence, an industry newsletter based in Houston. "For Mexico, its 'We want to make certain our oil rights are protected so that if they start drilling on the US side and discover
crossborder oil we have architecture in place to protects our interests." The 2012 hydrocarbons agreement sought to alleviate those issues. It lifts a moratorium on drilling in the region and
provides a legal framework for jointly developing the projected 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas in the region. Mexico almost immediately ratified the
Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, but it has languished in Congress because the House-passed version exempts
oil and gas companies from publicly disclosing their payments to foreign governments. The 2010 BP oil
spill has also cast a shadow on the agreement, which would facilitate an expansion of "deepwater drilling" in the Gulf of
Mexico. Environmental groups say the industry hasn't learned its lessons from the explosion that killed 11 people and spilled as much as 4.2
million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Decimates PC sparks backlash over the process of ratification and requires
Presidential involvement
Phil Taylor E&E Reporter, 1-9-2013, E&E: U.S.-Mexico transboundary agreement mired in
Congress, http://www.bromwichgroup.com/2013/01/ee-offshore-drilling-u-s-mexico-transboundary-
agreement-mired-in-congress/ DA: 6/5/14

It is unclear who in the Senate objected to the agreements passage, but sources say it was likely out of concern for the process by which it was being passed rather than
the substance of the agreement. That may stem in part from lingering uncertainty over whether the agreement is a treaty, which would require a
two-thirds majority for Senate ratification, or an executive agreement, which would require implementing legislation to be passed by a majority in both chambers. Regardless, its failure was a
surprise to staff on the ENR Committee who had crafted a news release in preparation for its passage but had to delete it after the agreement was blocked. According to the report by Foreign
Relations Republicans, the Obama administration has yet to say whether the agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement but appears to prefer the latter. Mexicos Senate ratified the
agreement, suggesting it was interpreted as a treaty. If it is a treaty, a formal communication would need to be sent from the
president to the Foreign Relations Committee, which would trigger hearings on the matter and allow Congress to interpret any ambiguous language in the
agreement. That is important, because several provisions in the treaty invite scrutiny and clarification, according to the committee
report. The treaty doesnt have every detail worked out, said Neil Brown, a former adviser to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) who was ranking member of
the committee until his retirement earlier this month. For example, one section of the agreement calls for common standards, but it is unclear whether that requires companies to adopt U.S.
safety and environmental standards or Mexicos, which are considered less developed. Another area of the agreement creates a dispute resolution process without saying whether the arbitration is
binding, the report said. The agreement would allow joint inspections by Interiors BSEE and the Mexican government to ensure compliance with applicable laws. Some on the Foreign
Relations Committee said they were miffed that the administration did not consult with them before pushing
the agreement through in the lame duck.

Turn Shield Energy Uniquely Polarized
No turns
A. All energy policy drains capital
Christine Todd Whitman, CASEnergy Co-Chair, Former EPA Administrator and New Jersey
Governor, National Journal Experts Blog, 8-13-2012, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-
the-sweet-spot-biparti.php?comments=expandall#comments

Its clear from the debate around the merits and drawbacks of various electricity and fuel sources that
energy policy can be a highly polarizing topic . In fact, its arguable that there is no energy option that holds
a truly bipartisan appeal : Every form of energy faces pockets of dissent. This makes crafting
universally accepted energy policy particularly challenging.
B. Drawn into broader partisanship and energy debate regardless of
congressional support
Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott, Former Senators, The Hill, 1-24-2012, http://thehill.com/special-
reports/state-of-the-union-january-2012/205973-dont-delay-action-on-energy-issues

As Congress returns and the president prepares to deliver his State of the Union address, many Americans, including members of Congress from both
parties, are frustrated about the seemingly endless string of partisan battles over energy policies and projects.
Whether its Keystone and oil pipelines, Solyndra and loan guarantees, light bulb standards and energy efficiency, responsible development of
new shale natural gas or the future of nuclear power, partisans on both sides are portraying these issues as all or
nothing . We know from experience that more agreement and desire for compromise exists than it now appears, if only Congress and the administration will
look for it. Indeed, we hope President Obama begins that process in his speech tonight. For example, little noticed in the presidents remarks on the Keystone XL oil
pipeline last week was a suggestion that he stands ready to work with industry to expedite that part of the pipeline that would run from the major oil supply center at
Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf Coast refineries. The administration should make good on this promise. Currently, oil from U.S. sources like the Bakken fields in North
Dakota cannot reach Gulf Coast refineries easily. Expediting construction of a pipeline that flows south from Cushing would reduce the glut of cheaper oil there,
allowing refiners to be less reliant on more expensive foreign oil and creating jobs, according to industry analysts. This could be important progress as the larger
Keystone issue gets resolved. And while Keystone has attracted the attention, a huge assortment of new pipelines, gathering systems and storage projects are on the
horizon; where appropriate, their construction can be expedited, as well. Important advances are possible this year on other energy issues. For example, the United
States is one step closer to building the first new nuclear power plants in 30 years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is likely to soon approve a license for
construction of two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors in Georgia; the AP1000 reactor features advanced passive systems that provide a significant safety advantage.
Critical to this project are loan guarantees, also pending, established with bipartisan support under the 2005 energy bill. With issuance of the NRC license, the
Department of Energy can finalize a loan guarantee to the plants owner to mitigate financing costs over the 5- to 6-year construction. In Congress,
legislation with bipartisan support is languishing in the midst of broader partisanship . A bill by Sens. Rob
Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), approved by a 18-3 vote in the Senate Energy Committee, could greatly improve U.S. energy efficiency, reducing
costs for consumer and businesses and making American industry more competitive.
Even popular energy legislation gets drawn into broader partisan energy debate
ensures gridlock
Amy Harder, energy and environment reporter, National Journal, 8-13-2012,
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-biparti.php

Which energy and environment policies garner bipartisan support? And what's holding Washington back
from acting on them? Numerous bills pending before Congress have widespread support from Democrats
and Republicans in both chambers, including bills on energy efficiency, natural gas-powered vehicles, and toxic-chemicals reform. Yet
even popular measures like these remain stalled. What other measures have attracted broad, bipartisan support? What's
holding back all these measures? Is there any common thread? What can Washington do to make progress on these issues while it
remains gridlocked over more divisive issues, such as climate change and offshore oil and gas drilling?
Energy uniquely politicized causes gridlock
Brigham McCown Principal and Managing Director of United Transportation Advisors LLC, National
Journal Experts Blog, 8-13-2012, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-
biparti.php?comments=expandall#comments

Energy is one of the most politicized issues facing the country today. While much of the nation is waiting
and relying on the federal government to weigh in on matters ranging from nuclear power to tax credits,
Washington policymakers seem unable to garner a general consensus and move forward with these
looming policy issues. Confronted with the increasing turmoil in overseas monetary markets and uprisings in volatile Middle East regions, now is the
time for politicians and special interest groups alike to set aside their differences and seek common ground.

Environment/Fish
Link Environment General
Ocean protection links GOP opposition to Obama push, spending, environmental
issues and states rights
Rebekah Rast Media Outreach Director at Americans for Limited Government Communications
Coordinator for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) at U.S. House of Representatives 10-31-2012 Obamas
environmental policies extend to Americas oceansand into the upcoming elections
http://netrightdaily.com/2012/10/obamas-environmental-policies-extend-to-americas-oceans-and-into-the-
upcoming-elections/ DA: 6/10/14

You can definitely see a partisan line when it comes to environmental policies in this country. One side thinks
many related laws and regulations go too far; the other side thinks many of these laws dont go far
enough. However, it seems this partisan line also stretches past the land of the U.S. and deep into its oceans. In 2010, when President Obama passed his
executive order Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, he claimed it strengthens ocean governance and coordination, establishes guiding principles for ocean management, and adopts a flexible framework for
effective coastal and marine spatial planning to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes. Not everyone agrees with his claim and now this oceans
and lakes power play has sparked quite a partisan fight going into this election year. Many Republicans see this Executive Order as nothing more than an
absurd power grab by the Obama administration. To control the countrys lakes, oceans and coastlands by issuing strict usage regulations and restrictions will only hurt such livelihoods as farming, fishing and logging. Many
Democrats and environmental allies see this as a positive step forward that will protect the nations oceans and also limit the number of conflicts over how the waters are used. The Washington Post cites a recent study where Boston
University biologist Les Kaufman was a contributor. The study shows that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching
operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Kaufman responds to the study saying, The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit
and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Meanwhile, Florida Republican Rep. Steve Southerland II, who is in a tight reelection race, says this ocean policy was like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our
freedoms, as quoted by the Washington Post. Despite its lack of support from many Republican members of Congress, it is the process by which this policy was
put into placethrough Executive Order that is most puzzling and troublesome to some. In 2007, a similar bill was proposed in Congress, which at that time was controlled by Democrats in both chambers, called OCEANS-21. It
would have established a comprehensive National Oceans Policy, very similar to what the president is working on today. The bill never became law. In spite of having an overwhelming partisan Democrat majority in his first two
years in office, Obama chose to ignore the will of Congress altogether, by mandating the policy into existence with a overly broad use of his powers to issue an Executive Orderinvolving only a small team of White House staff. As
Rep. Southerland compares this ocean policy to a rogue traffic control operation, all would agree that traffic control is a good operation to have. However, it is not an uncommon practice of government, when it is given a little
jurisdiction, to take much more. This is exactly what concerns Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the House Natural Resources Committee Chairman. The Washington Post summarizes his thoughts as not being opposed to a national
ocean policy, per se, but concerned about the administrations vague and broad definition of what ocean means exactly. If it includes runoff from land in its jurisdiction then it could open the door to regulating all inland activities,
because all water going downhill goes into the ocean That potential could be there, Rep. Hastings said. Out of concern for the thousands of American jobs that rely on Americas Great Lakes and oceans, the House
voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing the policy, though the amendment has
not passed the Senate. In an interview with Americans for Limited Government (ALG) earlier this year, Jim Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, took Chairman Hastings comments even farther and said
that this ocean policy is nothing more than private property theft. This is a government takeover of every piece of water that drains into the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, he
says. This is taking states rights away, land rights and personal property rights.
Ocean environment protection costs PC Obama push ensures opposition
Pete Stauffer Senior Manager, Ocean Program at Surfrider Foundation 6-1-2014 Keep the Stoke
Alive Comments More Sharing ServicesShare Texas Lawmaker Leads Attack on our National Ocean
Policy http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/congress-takes-aim-at-our-national-ocean-policy
DA: 6/6/14

Who is Congressmen Bill Flores and what does he have against the ocean? Last week, the Republican lawmaker from Bryan, Texas led yet another effort in
Congress to undermine the National Ocean Policy (NOP). By a mostly party line vote, the U.S. House passed his amendment to an
appropriations bill (HR 4660) to defund the National Ocean Policy. The measure will next be considered by the Senate. Incredibly, this is Rep. Flores sixth attempt
in the past two years to obstruct implementation of the National Ocean Policy through a legislative amendment. This raises an important question: why is a lawmaker from a
land-locked district taking such a keen interest in ocean policy? The answer, not surprisingly, is politics. When the
National Ocean Policy was established by President Obama in 2010 it signaled a serious attempt to address the many shortcomings of our nations piecemeal approach to ocean management.
Taking its cue from the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy - a bipartisan body established by President George W. Bush - the policy emphasizes improved collaboration
across all levels of government to address priorities such as water quality, marine debris, and renewable energy A cornerstone of the policy is the establishment of regional ocean parterships
(ROPs) that empower states to work with federal agencies, stakeholders, tribes, and the public to plan for the future of the ocean. In just three years, important progress has been made, despite a
glaring lack of support from Congress. An Implementation Plan has been released with hundreds of actions that federal agencies are taking
to protect marine ecosystems and coastal economies. Collaborative projects are moving forward to restore habitats, advance ocean science, and engage stakeholders. And
finally, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast regions have begun ocean planning to enusure that future development will mimize impacts to the environment and existing users. Of course,
such success stories do not resonate well in Washington D.C., where controversy rules the day and
political parties instinctively oppose each others proposals . As an initiative of the Obama Presidency, the
policy has suffered from partisan attacks , despite the collaborative framework it is based upon. Yet, such political gamesmanship by our federal leaders is
obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National Ocean Policy are taking hold in states and regions across the country, even without the meaningful support of Congress.
Ocean environment protection controversial - partisan politics
Alan Pierce, Tutor at College Living Experience , graduated from UC Santa Barbara, 2012 Stop
Congress From Defunding Ocean Protection Policies http://forcechange.com/20971/stop-congress-from-
defunding-ocean-protection-policies/ DA: 6/6/14

The U.S. Government may soon be taking two giant steps backward from recent progress in environmental protection.
In 2010, President Obama issued an executive order called the National Ocean Policy, which ensures that beaches are kept clean, ocean wildlife and habitats are protected and that energy
facilities (i.e. oil drills) are sensibly located for best production and least environmental harm. However, the U.S. House of Representatives has now voted to block the
implementation of this refined ocean management system by restricting federal funding towards ocean management
procedures. Opponents claim it creates unnecessary bureaucracy which will inhibit economic growth. In reality, this is
exactly the opposite of the intended outcomes for the National Ocean Policy. Representative Norman Dicks (D-WA) explains it simply, The core approach of the National Ocean Policy is to
improve stewardship of our oceans, coasts, islands, and Great Lakes by directing government agencies with differing mandates to coordinate and work better together. With more than twenty
agencies and 140 laws in place to regulate ocean industries, the NOP effectively improves efficiency through increased communication and cross-management. The oil and gas industries that
utilize ocean resources must have continuous, transparent interaction with the fishing, recreation and protection agencies so that the ocean habitats do not face the destructive windfall of
inconsistent policies across industries. While environmental protection should be motivation enough, the National Ocean Policy will also ensure stability and promote growth of the ocean
tourism and recreation industry. In 2009, this sector produced upwards of 1.8 million jobs and over $60 billion of the nations GDP. In total, not even the U.S. farm industry matches the output of
the U.S. ocean economy. So criticism based on the efficiency and economic viability of the National Ocean Policy is completely unfounded and those that read the policy will understand this
very clearly. Partisan agendas and fear of federally funded programs should not be allowed to affect the delicate and vastly
diminished ocean habitats within U.S. territory. These amendments are not yet part of the final spending bill, which will not be completed unt il later this year, and the Senate also has not yet
finalized its bill. Before such action is taken, support these critical ocean policy measures and ensure that the vital protection of ocean habitat is upheld.
Ocean protection costs PC GOP partisan fighting
Maggie Caldwell is a former senior editorial fellow at Mother Jones. 2-22-2013Good Riddance:
112th Congress Had Worst Environmental Record Ever
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/112th-congress-league-of-conservation-voters-score-
worst-ever

"The best that can be said about this session of the 112th Congress is that it's over," League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said this week. The sentiment comes in reaction to
the League's 2012 Congressional Scorecard, released on Wednesday, which showed that in a year that saw record breaking heat waves, drought, wildfires, Hurricane
Sandy, and other climate-change fueled disasters, the Republican-led House of Representatives came out with the worst environmental
record ever . The League tallies its scores by looking at each member of congress' votes on laws that have major environmental implications. Last year, the House put
forth more than 100 bills, riders, and amendments related to the environment and public health, mostly with harmful
effects. On top of that, House Republicans' proposals sought to trample on virtually every area related to the
environment, from rolling back EPA safeguards for waterways and wildlife that stand in the way of the pursuit of coal, to limiting the president's power to preserve land as National
Monuments. Not even the sea turtles were safe. Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) offered an amendment to a bill that would prohibit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration from enforcing a rule that prohibits fishermen from snaring the endangered reptiles in their nets. (The amendment was later dropped.) The league credited the
Senate and the Obama Administration for batting down many of the most appalling affronts to the environment, but a few slipped through. What is striking in the data
is how starkly the scores fell along party lines . House Democrats had an average score of 82, while their Senate counterparts scored 89. House
Republicans had a score of 10, while GOP Senators' average was 17. League of Conservation Voters 2012 Scores By Party The divide is also reflected in the scores of party leadership.
Democrats Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin were both deemed environmental champions by LCV wit h perfect scores of 100, while Republican Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip Jon Kyl both had dismal scores of 7, only voting for two eco-friendly measures that also concerned subsidies for farmers. In the House,
Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi scored 94 and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer scored 91 for their attempts to stem the deluge of environmentally corrosive laws. Republican Majority
Leader Eric Cantor scored 3, voting against or abstaining on everything except flood insurance reform, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy scored 6, voting against the protection of the water
supply in his home state of California. (Speaker of the House John Boehner got a pass because the speaker votes at his own discretion.) "These issues have traditionally
been bipartisan," Jeff Gohringer, spokesperson for the League, said. "Now members of Congress are standing up for the polluter
agenda over the desires of their constituents. It's been taken to a whole new level in terms of the extreme leadership in
the Republican Party in the House. They've cemented their position as the worst House ever in the face of historic
extreme weather all across the country."
Link Environment Arctic
Arctic environmental policy costs capital its viewed as a climate change issue
Andrew Holland is the senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project, a non-
partisan national security think tank 9-26-2013 America is failing to meet challenges of a changing
Arctic http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meet-challenges-changing-
arctic DA: 6/7/14

Americas Arctic, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness have made it difficult for us to take advantage of the vast resources and
enormous opportunity of the region. Today, the Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open water is darker
colored than ice, so it collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below historical averages and maintains a downward trend. While
scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels. Although climate
change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the waters surface
and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources causing the warming.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive Economic Zone" (which
extends 200 nautical miles fromthe coast). The other major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is completely gone, ships will
sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska. But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will allow for the exploitation of
these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe
navigation north of the Bering Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The
nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as "only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened international standards for shipping in the
Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias
Northern Sea Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic
sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action, Russia will certainly set the standards. The United States has not fully claimed territory in the Arctic to the fullest extent of International Law
because the U.S. Congress refuses to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The other four nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the
North Pole. They are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can have a role in determining borders within the Arctic.
Finally, we need a military presence in order to maintain the security in our sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today, neither the U.S. Navy nor the U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic
(the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on strategic patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an extensive retrofit, but she is
over 36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14 budget includes $2 million for plans for a new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million. In todays federal budget environment, even the $2 million outlay is uncertain. In
contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently constructing what will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of
the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly committed to expanding their naval presence. Perhaps it is because of the political paralysis on climate policyinCongress and in state
governments that it is impossible to have a rational debate about the impacts of climate change. So long as a large portion of our political system
refuses to acknowledge the very existence climate change -- even in the face of clear evidence across Alaska, we will not be able to make the
investments necessary to take advantage of a changing Arctic.

Link Catch Shares
Catch shares cost PC Obama push ensures opposition
Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations,
December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-
dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14

Catch Shares. We're not certain how the new Congress will receive the Obama Administration's present push for catch shares. The "policy," such as it is, is
largely the product of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which, almost alone among environmental groups, has adopted a neo-liberal dogma
stressing "market-based" solutions to resolve environmental conflicts. These usually involve the privatization of publicly-held resources such as water and fish. It's
hard to predict how the populist-oriented Tea-Party will take to a program best suited for Wall Street's hedge fund managers. Think of it as trying to mesh Salina,
Kansas with Southport, Connecticut. There is little doubt that Congress needs to review the individual fishing quota systems currently in place in some fisheries,
including the Obama Administration's continuance of those Bush-era programs -- adding sector allocation -- under the catch share banner, as well as limited access privilege programs generally.
Consolidation, de facto privatization of fish resources, and the fate of the nation's fishing communities requires looking at. The question is, is this the Congress to
do that? The good news here is that with the Obama Administration pushing the EDF catch share agenda so aggressively, it could
make that program an anathema to new House members . Some Democrats, too, from Peter DeFazio to Barney Frank, have also
found NOAA's catch shares plans to be toxic.
Link Fishery Management
Fishery management funding costs PC requires arm twisting for spending
Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations,
December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-
dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14

Appropriations. There has been a lot of rhetoric over the past six months or more about cutting federal spending. The truth is, there's only
about 10 percent of the budget Congress has much say over, unless they begin tackling the defense budget and some entitlement programs. That means the fishery
management budget is in the crosshairs since it's part of that "discretionary" 10 percent of funding Congress can go after.
Now if NMFS were USDA, there'd probably be a fair amount of pork to cut, but, in fact, fishing has always been a poor stepchild in the federal
appropriations process , even when stalwarts like Warren Magnuson and Ted Stevens were alive, so cuts in these programs are likely to be painful. Removing the funding
for catch shares -- at least until it gets straightened out and some consensus is developed among the fleet on what catch share programs, if any, should look like -- would be one place to cut.
Another place where change could be made to NMFS' budget would be reprogramming Saltonstall-Kennedy Act funds to something useful, instead of offshore aquaculture or catch shares. An
alternative to the annual appropriations process for funding many essential fishery data collection programs, as we have been saying for many years, would be through the creation of a National
Fishery Trust Fund (see FN "Planning and Paying for Future Fisheries Research," August 2003, www.pcffa.org/fn-aug03.htm). The framework for such a fund was provided for in an amendment
sponsored by Senators Ted Stevens and Barbara Boxer in the last MSA reauthorization. Depending on its source, such a stand-alone dedicated trust fund could finally provide the stable financial
support necessary for continuous fishery data collection and expanded research. The problem we see in the new House is whether the creation of
such a fund would be labeled a "new tax." Trying to educate the new House leadership that such a fund is a
necessary investment in the future of America's oldest industry could be difficult.
Fisheries support costs PC Obama pushes, spending causes intense opposition and
pushes off other agenda items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation, environmental, and legislative
issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy
administrator of the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also former
majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 6-18-2013 United States:
The Budget Outlook For Maritime Programs For FY2014
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budget+Outlook+for+Maritime+
Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14

The President's budget request for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, was delivered late this year. The President's budget arrived in
Congress in the midst of two very different views of the budget passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions.
These resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail
projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March 23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the
budget. Prior to the release of his budget request, in the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent [infrastructure]
repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The
President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas, including ports, to spur job
growth and enhance our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime Administration ("MARAD"), the President has
requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the Maritime Security Program; $81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25
million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on
U.S. flag ships from 75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The President's budget continues to zero out
funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference cuts. (See H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-
MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has requested a total of $9.79 billion, or 5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets,
including funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the
POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the
President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated National Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for
consolidating the grants into one block grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation is passed this year. For NOAA, the President
has requested a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the
National Ocean Service, of which the Marine Debris Program has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of $2.186 million for the
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and an increase of $21 million to support an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's oceanographic
research fleet. Summary The House and Senate are currently holding a series of hearings featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests. The House of Representatives is likely
to pass appropriation bills that are vastly different from the White House's request. In fact, Members of the House Appropriations Committee, such
as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee, have already questioned whether full funding can be provided
for the Commerce/NOAA budgets. It also remains to be seen whether Congress can revert to regular order, i.e., by passing the
individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has a desire to return to regular order, but this
is not likely to happen in the near term except for defense agencies where bipartisan agreement is more likely to be reached. The government keeps
limping along with cuts from sequester, delays in Congressional approval for spending plans, and
uncertainties in the outcome for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are delayed. The House and Senate
will once again have to debate their respective visions for the 2014 budget and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the
debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a fight over offsetting budget cuts. Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the debt
ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
Fishery management funding causes controversy GOP budget conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progresss
Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is
the Public Lands Project Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public
Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-ways-that-looming-budget-cuts-to-
public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-all-americans/ DA: 6/10/14

On January 2, 2013 a set of large, across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011.
These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major
domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands. The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of
budget conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe super committeewas unable to come to an
agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so,
federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2 trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered a
plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only
an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national
security. Sequestrations impacts could be equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation. Sequestration will have a
bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer
places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional
sources of revenue must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge he convinced many in Congress to sign
promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy
government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can
move forward. But unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are going to have to start making do
without some of these vital services we now consider fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the
Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might mean, including: Less accurate
weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and
Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no
doubt Americans will feel the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites, firefighters, American-made energy, and
hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for
these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and
security (weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber,
grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-
1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for conservation should not
be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order
to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing these necessary services to the American people, congressional Republicans must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue
increases and spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans
due to the economic and societal benefits they provide. Attempting to balance the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to
increase revenue means we will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer places to hunt, fish, and
relax. Impact on public lands and oceans The White House Office of Management and Budget released a report in September determining that t he sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduction of 8.2 percent for discretionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. All of the cut s descri bed in thi s issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that has a defense function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 mil lion in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provi de much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line i tems where appropriations are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Service operations budget will
lose $183 mil lion, but it does not specify which services or which par ks will bear the brunt of thi s reduction those decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies might makefor example, which areas might close, which progra ms might end, how many j obs will be lost, and ot her details. Nevertheless, we can easily assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a maj or impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the agencies provi de. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most important and evident investments that t he federal government makes is in weather prediction. But sequestration could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If thi s happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, bli zzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The Nati onal Oceanic
and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nat ions primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Centers storm-tracki ng capabili ties to the long-term proj ections of global climate change. Even the Weather Channels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when i t comes to forecasting capabilit ies. As accurate as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the trac kof Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall days before U.S. models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New Yor k/New Jersey area less than a weekafter Sandy, they freque ntly referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even t hough our domestic weather prediction capabili ties trai l the Europeans i n many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut woul d
make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nations aging weather monitoring satell ites. The Government Accountabil ity Office predicted that even at current spending level s, to buy replacement satellites, there will li kely be a gap in satel lite data lasting 17 to 53 monthsthe t ime it ta kes the old satell ite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During thi s time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather di sasters such as hurricanes and bl izzards coul d decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construct ion account woul d face a $149 million reducti on, according to the Office of Management and Budget s proj ections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quali ty storm predictions and warnings, potentially causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development Energy
development is an important and legitimate use of our lands and oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore) provide substantial
natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands and waters. Sequestration, however,
could potentially hinder government agencies from planning, studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans
also offer significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all
previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first
offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers, the agency issued its
first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and ocean management agencies face cuts to the
programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and help bui ld fossil fuel and renewable energy proj ects on an efficient timeline. This means proj ects will ta ke longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stall ing of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will al so mean a greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account i s devoted t o energy and minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wi ldlife Service also has funds that allow it to st udy the impacts of energy de velopment on species and habitats, but the account that is i n part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be
slashed by $105 mill ion in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, maki ng i t more difficult for renewable energy proj ects on publ ic lands t o actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by $13 mil lion in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency manages exploration, science, leasing, permitting, and development of offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut t o thi s agencys budget could sl ow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Cont inental Shelf. Additionally, offshore drilli ng safety could be compromised by the fiscal showdown. The Office of Management and Budget notes that the agency that oversees offshore oil and gas rigs to ensure safety and environmental standardsthe Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcementis slated to be slashed by $16 mill ion al together in fi scal year 2013. As this agency noted in i ts budget j ustification: The bureau conducts thousands of inspections of OCS [Outer Continental Shelf]
facilities and operationscovering tens of thousands of safety and pollution prevention components to prevent offshore accidents and spi lls and to ensure a safe worki ng environment. The bureau str ives to conduct annual i nspections of all oil and gas operations on the OCS, while focusing an increasing proportion of resources on t he highest riskoperations in order to examine safety equipment designed to prevent blowouts, fires, spil ls, and other maj or accidents. A $16 mill ion cut to these operations could be dangerous for wor ker safety and well-being, as well as that of t he ecosystems, communities, and businesses that rely on a healthy ocean. Further reductions to the budget of the U. S. Coast Guard, which serves as the first responder in the event of an oil spil l, could al so affect its abil ity to respond to emergencies and are detailed later in this report. Fewer wildland firefighters Our land management agenciesalso make critical investments in fi ghti ng forest and wi ldland fires. This year saw devastating fires on both private and public lands but was particularly bad for national forestsa fire in the Gila Nati onal Forest, for example, was New Mexicos
largest-ever fire. And the National Interagency Fire Center has determined the amount of acreage burned by wildfires has been increasing in recent decades. Land management agencies provide first-responder resources and capacity in terms of firefighters, equipment, and critical funding for fight ing these blazes. They he lp keep American families safe in times of need, particularly those whose homes are close to wil d places. But the U. S. Forest Service faces tremendous cuts to i ts firefight ing capabili ties under sequestration. It s Wildland Fire Management account, which funds preparedness, fire suppression, hazardous-fuels removal, restoration, and state fire assistance, among other things, is slated to be cut by $172 million in fi scal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. Additionally, the Department of the Interior s Wildland Fire Management account faces a $46 million cut next year. The department also funds the FLAME Wildfire Suppressi on Reserve Fund, which will be cut by $7 million under sequestr ation. In total, funding for wildland fire prevention and assistance at the land management agencies will be cut by $225 mil lion. Without
such funding, not only will Americans property and lives be more at risk, but special places such as national forest s and nati onal par ks wi ll be less resilient in the face of future fires. Closures of national parks National par ks often referred to as Americas best ideaare well-loved and protect our natural, cultural, and hi storical heritage. In addi tion to famous national parks such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, the 398 national parkunits managed by the National ParkService range from Cape Cod National Seashore to t he Apost le Islands Nati onal La keshore to the Fl ight 93 National Memorial. And yet many, if not all, of these national park unit s woul d face budgetary impacts under sequestration. These could include parkclosures, fewer visitor resources including educati onal programs, and a reduction in park staff such as rangers who help wi th upkeep on these si tes. Combi ned, all of t hese changes could lead to far worse visitor experiences at national parks, maki ng them less desirable vacation desti nations for American and international touri sts. Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget determined that the Nat ional Park Service as a
whole faces a $218 million cut in fi scal year 2013. As seen in the chart below, the maj ority of this cut is in t he Operation of the National Park System account, which funds programs such as protection of resources, law enforcement and parkrangers, visi tor services li ke educati on and interpretation, and maintenance such as trail construction and campgrounds. Potential cut s to the national Park Service in fiscal year 2013 The Operation of the National Park System account also contains much of the funding for agency staffin fiscal year 2012 nearly all of the funds to pay the National Par kService s employ ees were housed in this account. An 8.2 percentor $183 milli oncut to the Operation of the National Par kSystem account could cripple some of the most important functions of the Nati onal Park Service, which was already facing a decreasing budget and a serious maintenance backl og. Whi le it i s difficult to know for sure what exactly would be cut due to lack of information from the agency, the National Parks Conservation Associati on speculates t hat these cuts would very li kely lead to the furloughingor indefini te closureof nati onal
parks. A cut of thi s magnitude would also li kely lead to t he loss of many parkrangers, particularly during the busy visit ing season. The organi zat ion also warned t hat cuts of t his magnit ude could lead t o park closures and calculated that an approximately 8 percent cut would be equivalent to closing up to 200 national parkunits with the smallest operating budget s, closi ng 150 parks with low visitat ion rates, or closing a handful of large and famous parks such as the National Mall and Memorials, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Gateway National Recreation Area. In addition to the fact that vi sitors may not be abl e to see these places, their closures coul d also lead t o declines i n revenue and even j obsthe National Par kService st imulated $31 bill ion in economic contributi ons and 258,000 j obs in 2011. Fewer places to hunt Americas lands and oceans also provi de important opportuni ties for recreation, includi ng hunting and fi shing. Many of the areas that are open to these activit ies also provide nonwildl ife-related recreation opportunities such as hi king, camping, boat ing, and off-road vehicle use. Not only are these areas important places to play, they also are
important economic drivers: A recent report from the U.S. Fi sh and Wi ldlife Service found that more than 37 mil lion Americans hunted or fi shed in 2011, contr ibut ing bi lli ons of dollars to the economy. A number of agencies that oversee recreational hunti ng and fishing face budgetary cuts. The Bureau of Land Management, for example, manages 256 million acres of public lands, much of which i s open to sportsmen. The agencys largest budget li ne item is Management of Lands and Resources, which includes nearly all of its funds t o manage wildlife and fisheries, wilderness, and other recreation resources. And yet the Office of Management and Budget predict s this account wi ll see an $85 mil lion cut in fi scal year 2013. The U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service also has an vital role in providing hunt ing and fi shing opport unit ies because it funds wildlife programs and manages the national wildlife refuges that serve as fish and game habitats. The Resource Management ac count in its budget houses operations such as visitor services, law enforcement, refuge maintenance, habitat conservation, and national fi sh-hatchery operations. This account would see a
$105 milli on cut i n fiscal year 2013, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The Nor th American Wetlands Conservati on Fund, which provides federal grants t o restore wetlands for fish and wildlife, would be cut by $3 milli on, whi le the Federal Aid in Wil dlife Restoration program (Pittman-Robinson), which provides federal funds to states for wi ldlife management and restoration, would be cut by $31 milli on. The Forest Service also faces cuts t hat woul d impair its abili ty to provide American sportsmen with recreation opportunit ies. Its National Forest System account, which would be cut by $129 million, funds priori ties such as forest rest oration, which provides new places to hunt and fish ; planning i n order to manage recreation opportunities; and an entire account devoted to Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness. In addi tion, it s Forest and Rangeland Research line item, which has a small subaccount for Recreation Research and Development, would be cut by $24 milli on, and the State and Private Forestry account, which provides funds for open space conservation and new protected areas, would be cut by $21 mill ion. Whi le it is
unclear exactly which programs will be cut at each of these agencieswe have merely predicted potential implicat ions of budget cuts there is l itt le doubt that cut s would impact the hunt ing and fi shing experience that Americans currently enj oy. And cuts of this magnit ude could potential ly lead to a decline in the quali ty of wildlife habi tat, fewer places that are protected for their hunting and fishi ng values, less law enforcement, poorly maintained hiking trai ls, deterioration of visitor facilit ies, fewer education programs, unprocessed hunti ng and access permits, and the basic disintegration of visit or experiences overallall of which means less revenue. Less fish on your table Americas saltwater fisheries, both commercial and recreational, are
managed by the [NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys National Marine Fisheries Service. Despite an onerous and costly legal mandate to end overfishing in U.S. waters and set strict science-
based annual catch limits in all fisheries beginning in 2011, this services budget has already declined by more than 10 percent from an all-time high of $1 billion in 2010
to $895 million for fiscal year 2012. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Operations, Research, and Facilities accountwhich includes funding for day-to-day operations of the
National Marine Fisheries Servicewill be cut by 8.2 percent if sequestration occurs. If the Office of Management and Budget applies that reduction equally across all the agencys departments, that would mean a further reduction of
$73 million from the National Marine Fisheries Service, on top of the 10 percent cut this year. These cuts could have major impacts on getting fish to our kitchen tables. No matter how the sequestration cuts end up being distributed,
they will mean the agencys fisheries scientists will have fewer resources with which to carry out research that informs the fishery stock assessments on which catch limits are based. If scientists know less, they will have to be more
conservative with catch limits to ensure overfishing does not occur. This means fishermen will be forced to catch less, leading directly to fewer recreational opportunities, less fish in the marketplace, and a loss of revenue to coastal
businesses and communities. The cuts will also have impacts on jobs because fishing in U.S. oceans is a massive economic driver in coastal regions. Saltwater anglers spent $19.5 billion in 2009, according to National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency estimates, and the recreational fishing industry was directly responsible for more than 300,000 jobs (these figures do not include costs such as hotel rooms, meals, travel, and other services). This same report
found that commercial fisheries accounted for more than 1 million jobs and more than $116 billion in sales impacts. Members of the House of Representatives Appropriations
Committee stated in a report on the 2012 budget for the federal governments Commerce, Justice, and Science account that, Healthy levels of investment in [fisheries] scientific research are the key to long-term economic growth.
And yet the legislation accompanying that report still slashed more than $200 million from the presidents recommended budget.
Sequestration will cut even more.

Link Marine Protected Areas General
MPAs cause controversy GOP House opposition
Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations,
December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-
dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14

Marine Protected Areas/Marine Zoning. Here there is good news. Keep in mind, marine protected areas can be a useful tool where there's a demonstrated need
and good science is applied. Likewise, marine spatial planning could be helpful in the future to resolve space use conflicts between competing ocean uses. However, our concern has been with
the misuse of the former and the unknown application of the latter. It has been extremely difficult to bring any rationality into the debate on
the application and siting of marine protected areas. Instead they've become a cash cow for environmental groups, pocketing massive amounts of foundation grants to fund their campaigns,
whether or not there is any need or the science to justify such closures. Some green groups have begun sounding like salesmen for monster pick-ups or Internet shills for male enhancement pills -
- "bigger is better." Then there have been the academics sniffing-out grants from writing or testifying about the benefits of marine reserves -- whether or not the science is credible. Follow that up
with politicians and bureaucrats falling in line to promote marine reserves to get their League of Conservation Voters green points -- either trying for a perfect score or to avoid a goose egg -- and
you can kiss off any kind of measured, rational discussion. The announcement then (see below) that new national monuments would be carefully
scrutinized by the new Congress is welcome. This should help to slow the process down. The one downside is that the new House is less
likely to want to tackle pollution and water quality issues that have to be addressed -- not just fishing -- to make an effective marine protected area. Indeed, many of the already designated areas
protect little, they're merely no fishing zones, sort of like Maginot Lines in the sea readily penetrated by pollution and oil spills. But then we haven't seen much from politicians or bureaucrats, to
date, at either the federal or state level with the backbone to address water quality issues affecting MPAs. So what's the difference here? The new House leadership will
also likely slow down the rush to "marine spatial planning." A two-year slow down to allow for a more thoughtful, consensus driven, marine zoning
policy to evolve would be welcome. The way we'd envision this happening is that implementation of spatial planning getting held up in the House Resources
Committee could then lead to off-the-Hill discussions among the various interest groups (fishing, conservation, maritime) to forge an acceptable policy. In the House
there is, or should be, concern from the fishing industry about the leadership's closeness with Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Development,
Big Pharma and Big Insurance. On the other hand, they don't owe Big Green anything.
MPA creation cause fights fishing lobbies and jurisdictional confusion
Bruce Barcott is an environmental journalist whose articles have appeared in Outside Magazine,
National Geographic, The New York Times Magazine, and OnEarth magazine, 6-6-2011 The
Unfulfilled Promise of the Worlds Marine Protected Areas
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/fulfilling_the_great_promise_of_worlds_marine_protected_areas/2416/ DA:
6/6/14 **edited for gendered language

In fact theres new evidence that the marine reserves are helping to replenish the open areas hit hard by the yellow tang divers. In a paper published in the December 2010 issue of
PLoS One, Tissot showed that larvae from fish spawning inside the marine reserve were floating outside the reserve, effectively seeding areas up to 100 kilometers away. This is the first time
that larval dispersal has been shown to be one of the mechanisms underlying what we call the seeding effect of marine reserves, said Mark Hixon, an Oregon State University marine ecologist
and former chair of NOAAs Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee, who was one of Tissots co-authors. Populations build up inside the reserves, those fish spawn, and their
larvae drift out and rain down on fished areas outside the reserves. His research, Tissot said, sends a strong message about marine reserves. These things are really working. But if they work
so well, why arent more being created? The short answer is that fishers , in general, hate them. Or at best they distrust them. Marine
reserves are usually set up in the most welcoming fish habitat, which anglers, of course, consider the best fishing spots. But scientists and conservationists point out that unless more marine
reserves are established, there will soon be no fishing spots. Fishers can be powerful political players . Fishing closures are unlikely to be adopted in areas
of highly valuable commercial fishing or those near large fishing-dependent populations, Jay Nelson, director of Pews Oceans Legacy campaign, wrote last year. Therefore, the most feasible
sites are in remote areas that for various reasons have not yet been the target of large-scale commercial fishing or other extractive activities. In the U.S., a number of states are considering
establishing new marine reserves, spurred on by an increased awareness of the oceans plight and the recent green energy rush to industrialize offshore wind and wave power sites. California is in
the final stages of a decade-long redesign of its marine protected areas system. In Oregon, the state has established two very small marine reserves that it labels pilot projects, and three other
potential reserve sites are under consideration. Bernie Bjork, a retired commercial fisherman from Astoria, Oregon, who spent the past year fighting over one of the reserves, sees the creation of a
marine reserve as one more nail in the coffin of Oregons commercial fishing fleet. Since 1999, 80 percent of the trawl fleets fishing grounds off the coast of Oregon and Washington have been
closed down, he told me. Hes not an unreasonable guy. A few years ago he worked with Environmental Defense to help establish quota systems on the West Coast. But the politics of the whole
process frustrated him. They said theyd allow boats to come in, but you cant fish. And then they said the crabbers could come in, but not the trawlers. Theyre going to use adaptive
management, which means they can change the rules at any time. It really got confusing. When it comes to marine reserves, everything is negotiable, and
confusion is common . There are few clear hard-and-fast rules as there are with terrestrial wilderness designations, partly because
the ocean is so much more dynamic and complex, and partly because theres no congressional act establishing marine reserves as there is for federally protected
wilderness. While the designations given to marine protected areas ecosystem reserves, marine sanctuaries, marine reserves, marine monuments may be terms of art to
bureaucrats, to the rest of us theyre confusing and alienating.
MPA designation causes controversy significant Navy and fisher opposition
Christopher Pala, journalist
Reports on Central Asia, the oceans, climate change, the boreal forest and the North Pole, 2-10-2009
Will Obama Expand the No-Take Pacific Fishing Zones?
http://www.atuna.com/NewsArchive/ViewArticle.asp?ID=6663 DA 6/6/14

Many environmentalists say the time to create marine no-take areas is now, before these fleets start increasing their fishing effort in the Pacific. Bushs latest reserves in the
Central Pacific include the islands of Howland, Baker, Palmyra, Johnston, Jarvis, Wake and Kingman Reef, making up the 215,000 sq km Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, along with the 35,000 sq km Rose Island Marine National Monument, just east of Pago Pago. In the
Western Pacific, it involves a small area around the northern-most Mariana Islands. If the Obama administration extends the monuments to the full EEZs, marine biologists like Steve Gaines say that added to the Phoenix Islands
Protected Area and the Nauru Agreement no-take pockets of international waters, the measure could have some effect on the tuna stocks that provide income for many Paci fic nations. Usually the effect of marine protected areas on fish like tuna that travel all over the ocean is marginal,
says Gaines, an authority on marine reserves who heads the Marine Science Institute at the University of California at Santa Barbara. But if these multiple reserves are big enough, you could see increases in their populations. John Hampton, the Oceanic Fisheries Program Manager at the
Secretariat of the Pacific community, says that to be effective, marine protected areas need to go in tandem with reduced fishing outside those areas if the actual catch is to be reducedsomething that the Nauru Agreement accomplishes by restricting fishing in the EEZs of its members as its
bans its licensees from fishing in the high-seas pockets. Ironically, the most significant opposition to extending the monuments to the full EEZs of the 11 islands had nothing to do with fishing: it came from
the US Navy. Even though Bush specified in a memorandumlast August that the monument designation should not limit the department of defense from carrying out its mission in the Pacific, senior Pentagon officials expressed concern that it could lead to future
restrictions on their ability to carry out their tasks. They cited lawsuits restricting the use of active sonar, which injures whales and dolphins that arose fromBushs designation of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands monument two years ago. Without the Navy, I think the monuments would
have been a lot bigger, said one environmentalist. Then came opposition from recreational fishers. Eight organizations representing them urged Bush not to
ban recreational fishingin any of the monuments, even though virtually none is taking place there or is likely to take place there in the foreseeable future because of their remote locationswith the exception of Palmyra, which hosts a few dozen fishermen a year. We do
not support any unnecessary closures to recreational fishing unless there is a scientific determination that shows recreational fishing is harming the ecosystem, said Patty Doerr of the American Sportfishing Association. She added that the only way for a closure to be justified i n the Pacific
areas would be for recreational fishing to be introduced and for it to demonstrably harmthe environment. The new set of closed areas will have little immediate effect: Hawaiis 123 long-liners were spending less than 5 percent of their time there, NOAA figures show, and the waters off the
northernmost Marianas, which have few tuna, are not fished at all. But that did not prevent aggressive pushback fromPacific marine conservationists old nemesis, the Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council, a federal agency whose executive director, Kitty Simonds, has fought restrictions on fishing for three decades. Wespac is tasked with protecting the interests of fishing companies as
well as insuring that these interests dont reduce fish stocks, but it has presided over the rapid collapse of lobster stocks in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and a steep decline in the fish stocks of the Main Hawaiian Islands. It has even encouraged the issuance of commercial bottom-fishing
and lobster-fishing permits in the National Wildlife Refuges of Baker, Howland, Kingman, Jarvis, Johnston and Palmyra, in violation of federal laws, says Jim Maragos, a veteran Fish and Wildlife Service scientist. In Saipan, where tourismand the garment industry are in free-fall, a pro-
monument petition attracted 6000 signatures and the Hotel Association and the Chamber of Commerce endorsed turning the waters around the three northernmost islandsMaug, Asuncion and Uracusinto a marine national monument. Almost no one is able to enjoy these islands at this
time, wrote Lynn Knight, chairwoman of the association, in a letter to Bush, while monument status would boost the local economy in promoting ecotourism. In contrast, the governor and most of the legislature have voiced their opposition to what they call The Pew Monument in
language that strikingly resembles Wespacs. The opposition was led by Wespac in every regard, said Rick Gaffney, a former Wespac council member. Without Wespac, added Andrew Salas, a former Marianas legislator, the opposition would have been minimal. There would have
been a bit of grumbling because relations between the Marianas government and the federal government are pretty bad these days, but thats it, because the overwhelming majority of the people support the monument. Wespac is under investigation by the US General Accountability Office
and the Inspector General of the Commerce Department for suspected illegal lobbying. In a letter to Bush that received wide publicity in Saipan, Aha Kiole, an organisation essentially created by Wespac to prevent marine reserves from being created in Hawaii, accused the president of
having created the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands reserve without the participation of the Native Hawaiian people, all of whom feel anger, trepidation and despair whenever the monument is mentioned. Although more than 100 hearings were held on the issue over six years, the letter
asserts that most Hawaiians did not know that the Pew Foundation was planning to take three-fourths of Hawaiian lands and make it into a monument. (In fact, the total land area of the ten-islet monument is 13 sq km, while the rest of Hawaii totals 16,635sq km). The Marianas monument,
the letter continued, will take an integral part of the Marianas culture away fromthe native peoplewith no hope of ever getting this part of their heritage back. Like all federal agencies, Wespac is barred from spending federal funds to lobby the legislative branches of state and federal
government. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, and the Inspector General of the Commerce Department are currently both investigating allegations that Wespac lobbied the US Congress and the Hawaii legislature to push its pro-fishing, anti-conservation
agenda, notably in creating Aha Kiole. In Saipan, much of the political elite has ties to Wespac. The governors chief of staff, Ray Mafnas, is a senior, unsalaried Wespac official who collects over US$600 a day every time he travels for Wespac. Arnold Palacios, Speaker of the House, is a
former member of the Wespac council. He wrote in a letter to Bush that the loss of control over such a vast area of land and water is an assault on the traditions and culture of the islands. The representative Speaker Palacios appointed as chairman of the House Federal Relations Committee,
Representative Diego Benavente, is a former lieutenant governor who is running for governor. He engineered the approval of two He was president of the Saipan Fishermens Association in 2005 when it got a US$150,000 grant fromWespac to rent and equip a store to sell its members
catch. But this past December, the Marianas Variety reported that the store had closed two months after it opened because of unexpected expenses like utilities, rent, and salaries. Benavente was quoted as saying: We ran out of money, basically. Valentin Taisakan, the mayor of the
Northern Islands Municipality, which lies south of the three islands designated as a monument by Bush in January, also wrote to Bush in opposition to the monument. Taisakan, who lives in Saipan, received a US$90,000 Wespac grant to create a fishing base in his remote municipality, but
the base never opened, according to Saipan sources. In another letter to Bush opposing the designation, Juan Borja Tudela, the mayor of Saipan, where most of the Marianas 65,000 people live, said the monument waters should be left under the control of Wespac, which he called much
more sensitive to the Pacific Islanders way of life. Wespacs vice-chairman, Manny Duenas, head of a fishermens group in Guam, went further in his own letter to Bush. The taking of our marine resources may be construed as being no different than cattle rustling and it would serve as
a springboard to ensure the cultural genocide of a people, he wrote. The result of all this opposition, and of negotiations between James Connaughton, Bushs environmental adviser, and Gov. Benigno Fitial, was a Marianas
marine reserve truncated into three segments, all falling far short of the goals articulated by its proponents: The Islands Unit around Maug, Asuncion and Uracus is only
42,500 sq kminstead of the 300,000 sq km proposed by Lubchenco and Pew; The Marianas Trench unit is 205,000 sq km, but it only protects the seabed and does not restrict fishing. The trenchs bottom fauna, including bacteria that are the oldest forms of life on earth, depends on rain of
nutrients fromthe surface area for food. The third component is a collection of 21 volcanic vents spewing bubbles and lava of great scientific interest. But since the area protected for each vent is just over a square kilometre and some volcanoes have calderas up to 10 kmacross, the
protection appears to be meaningless, specialists say.

Link Marine Protected Areas XO
Obama XOs on MPAs costs capital GOP oppose executive overreach
Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times, 12-20-2012 Huge expansion of U.S. protection for N. Calif.
waters proposed http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/20/local/la-me-marine-sanctuaries-20121221 DA:
6/6/14

Last month, California's congressional delegation lobbied President Obama to use the power of his office to expand these
sanctuaries' boundaries by declaring them national monuments. The American Antiquities Act of 1906 gives the president such
powers. President George W. Bush, impatient with government procedures, invoked the Antiquities Act to create the nation's largest marine protected areas,
surrounding the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and the Northern Marianas Islands. Although congressional Republicans didn't challenge Bush, they
have repeatedly warned the Obama administration against such a tactic particularly those lawmakers still fuming
over President Clinton's designation of Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and others in his final days of office.
Link Oceanographic Research
Oceanographic research funding costs PC Obama pushes, spending causes intense
opposition and pushes off other agenda items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation, environmental, and legislative
issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy
administrator of the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also former
majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 6-18-2013 United States:
The Budget Outlook For Maritime Programs For FY2014
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budget+Outlook+for+Maritime+
Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14

The President's budget request for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, was delivered late this year. The President's budget arrived in Congress in the
midst of two very different views of the budget passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions. These resolutions, while non-binding, provide
guidance to their respective appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on
March 23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget request, in the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put
people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent [infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our
goods." The President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas, including ports, to spur job growth and enhance our nation's
infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime Administration ("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The
MARAD budget includes $208 million for the Maritime Security Program; $81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and mariner jobs resulting from food aid programreform" (caused by last year's
sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from 75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The President's budget
continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference cuts. (See H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the
Coast Guard, the President has requested a total of $9.79 billion, or 5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast Response
Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These agencies would receive $13.45
billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated National Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to
this request for consolidating the grants into one block grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reformlegislation is passed this year. For NOAA, the President has requested a
total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the National Ocean Service, of whi ch the Marine Debris Program has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the
Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of $2.186 million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and an increase of
$21 million to support an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's oceanographic research fleet. Summary The House and Senate are currently holding a series of hearings featuring Administration witnesses to
delve into the President's budget requests. The House of Representatives is likely to pass appropriation bills that are vastly different from the White House's
request. In fact, Members of the House Appropriations Committee, such as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee, have already questioned whether full
funding can be provided forthe Commerce/NOAAbudgets. It also remains to be seen whether Congress can revert to
regular order, i.e., by passing the individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has a desire to return to regular order, but this
is not likely to happen in the near term except for defense agencies where bipartisan agreement is more likely to be reached. The government keeps limping
along with cuts from sequester, delays in Congressional approval for spending plans, and uncertainties in
the outcome for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are delayed. The House and Senate will once again have to debate
their respective visions for the 2014 budget and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a fight over offsetting budget cuts.
Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the debt ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
Oceanographic research causes controversy seen as pork-barrel spending and
opposition in Congress to environmental issues
Colin Woodard, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor 5-2-2007 US ocean observatories
imperiled by 'earmark' crackdown http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p02s01-uspo.html DA: 6/10/14

For the past six years, a network of high-tech buoys and radar stations have been providing a rich stream of data about conditions in the Gulf of Maine to fishermen,
mariners, scientists, and search and rescue personnel. It's a prototype for a national system that could help with ocean management and save the lives of mariners. But the Gulf of
Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMoos) and others like it across the country may not be able to save themselves. Their federal funding is ending,
in part because of congressional reforms that have clamped down on pork-barrel spending . What makes the $4 million-a-year GoMoos stand
out is that unlike many projects funded through a questionable process known as earmarks think Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" it enjoys wide support in and out of Congress and forms a part of the federal government's official
ocean policy. "GoMoos has really been a groundbreaking model for the whole country," says Rick Wahle of the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. "And now the plug may be being pulled."
Monitoring America's oceans The Portland-based network was supposed to serve as the prototype of an integrated national system of ocean-monitoring stations that would gather and process oceanographic information and release it
free of charge to the public, much as the National Weather Service does with atmosphere data. Ten other regional ocean observing systems have been established across the United States and are in varying degrees of development.
Gathering such information is seen as a crucial step toward better managing the nation's oceans, which extend up to 200 miles offshore. For example: Many of the nation's fisheries have been fished into near oblivion, their recovery
undermined by the deterioration of wetlands, coral reefs, and estuaries that many species rely on. There's expert consensus that ocean politics should be revamped to take into account how marine ecosystems work and that a national
ocean-observing system is needed to collect the data that scientists require to properly understand the system. The establishment of such a national system was one of the key 2004 recommendations of the US Commission on Ocean
Policy, a body appointed by President Bush. The official report urged Congress to commit $650 million annually to build and maintain the system, which it said would have "invaluable economic, societal, and environmental benefits."
One of those benefits has been improved search and rescue. "We're often trying to predict where survivors will have drifted over the time it takes for us to get to them, so we rely on predictive models of wind and currents," says Art
Allen of the Coast Guard's search and rescue headquarters in Washington, D.C. "These systems allow our controllers to get the best available data at a push of a button, increasing the precision of our analysis and getting us there
faster." Fishermen use data on deep-water temperatures and the abundance of microscopic floating plants to figure out where fish might be, while many of Maine's recreational boaters have grown accustomed to getting detailed
information on offshore wind and seas. Scientists are also keenly interested in the data to figure out how to harvest marine life without destroying the ocean's ability to produce it. "These buoys are unique in that they collect
temperature and current information not just at the surface, but at various intervals of depth," says Dr. Wahle, who studies the lobsters that support Maine's signature fishery. "With bottom-dwelling creatures like lobsters, it's far more
important to know what's going on deep beneath the ocean." Funding problems Now, GoMoos may be forced to shut down. "We may be pulling out some of our buoys, or we may be pulling all of them," says Tom Shyka, GoMoos'
chief operating officer. "We're working on other funding opportunities to avoid that, but we're definitely in a period of uncertainty." Other ocean-observing networks are facing
the same squeeze . "We do not have enough money to sustain the system in the long term," says Madilyn Fletcher, director of The Carolinas Coastal Ocean Observing and Prediction System in Columbia, S.C., which
has deferred maintenance on its buoys and may pull them if funds cannot be secured. The root problem: Congress never passed legislation to fund the
system. In recent years, the Senate twice passed bills that would have formally established and fund the national system. House versions never came to the floor for a
vote, according to congressional sources from both parties, because of the opposition of then- Rep. Richard Pombo (R) of California. As chair of the powerful natural resources committee, he often
opposed spending on environmental issues . As a result, the ocean-observing systems relied on congressional earmarks to cover most of their operations, but these were stripped from this year' s
budget. "Given the scandalous results of the earmark process in recent years, something needed to be done," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, which opposes earmarks. "It's an
inequitable and noncompetitive way to allocate funds. It's difficult to separate what is worthwhile from
what might not be."

Transportation
Link Transportation General
Transportation costs PC Obama pushes, GOP opposition and election year politics
Yonah Freemark, Master of Science in Transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yale University
with Distinction 1-25-2012 On Infrastructure, Hopes for Progress This Year Look Glum
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/25/on-infrastructure-hopes-for-progress-this-year-look-glum/
DA: 6/11/14

President Obama barely mentions the need for improvements in the nations capital stock in his State of the Union. The contributions of the Obama Administration to
the investment in improved transportation alternatives have been significant, but it was clear from the Presidents State of the Union address last
night that 2012 will be a year of diminished expectations in the face of a general election and a tough
Congressional opposition. Mr. Obamas address, whatever its merits from a populist perspective, nonetheless failed to propose dramatic reforms to
encourage new spending on transportation projects, in contrast to previous years. While the Administration has in some ways radically reformed the way
Washington goes about selecting capital improvements, bringing a new emphasis on livability and underdeveloped modes like high-speed rail, there was little indication in the speech of an effort
to expand such policy choices. All that we heard was a rather meek suggestion to transform a part of the money made available from the pullout from the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts a sort
of war dividend whose size is undefined to do some nation-building right here at home. If these suggestions fell flat for the pro-investment audience, they were reflective of the reality of
working in the context of a deeply divided political system in which such once-universally supported policies as increased roads funding have become practically impossible to pursue. Mr.
Obama pushed hard , we shouldnt forget, for a huge, transformational transportation bill in early 2011, only to be rebuffed by intransigence
in the GOP-led House of Representatives and only wavering support in the Democratic Senate. For the first
term at least, the Administrations transportation initiatives appear to have been pushed aside. Even so, it remains to be seen how the Administration will
approach the development of a transportation reauthorization program. Such legislation remains on the Congressional agenda after three years of delays (the law expires on March 31st). There is
so far no long-term solution to the continued inability of fuel tax revenues to cover the growing national need for upgraded or expanded mobility infrastructure. But if it were to pass, a new multi-
year transportation bill would be the most significant single piece of legislation passed by the Congress in 2012. The prospect of agreement between the two
parties on this issue, however, seems far-fetched. That is, if we are to assume that the goal is to complete a new and improved spending bill, rather than simply further
extensions of the existing legislation. The House could consider this month a bill that would fund new highways and transit for several more years by expanding domestic production of heavily
carbon-emitting fossil fuels, a terrible plan that would produce few new revenues and encourage more ecological destruction. Members of the Senate, meanwhile, have for months been claiming
they were looking for the missing $12 or 13 billion to complete its new transportation package but have so far come up with bupkis. The near-term thus likely consists of either continued
extensions of the current law or a bipartisan bargain that fails to do much more than replicate the existing law, perhaps with a few bureaucratic reforms.
Transportation links Obama PC required, strong GOP opposition
Dana Rubenstein, Reporter for Capital New York, has written for Bloomberg Businessweek, the Wall
Street Journal, the New York Times, the New York Observer, and the Brooklyn Paper 3-27-2012
When is Obama going to have his Eisenhower moment?
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/03/5524547/when-obama-going-have-his-
eisenhower-moment DA: 6/11/14

On the subject of the current president, theres more of a consensus. One point of agreement is that he has talked a great game, but has been unable to do much
to deliver. Another is that he might be able to do more if he gets a second term, but that even then it would depend on whether the upcoming election produces a Congress that is, one way or another, less hostile to his agenda
Even Eisenhower didnt mention transportation as much as this guy, said Joshua Schank, a former transportation adviser to Hillary Clinton who is now president of the Eno Center for Transportation. Its hard not to be frustrated
that he hasnt acted on it more, he added At the moment, it can safely be said that building support for increased transportation spending is not the president's top
priority, as he heads into a general election with the economy just showing signs of recovery. Infrastructure fundingand what were once packaged as stimulus projects, generallyhave taken a back seat
to, say, the price of gas and, by extension, the conspicuously expanded drive for domestic energy resources. The lesson that Obama and the administration seem to have taken from the times they have pushed
hard for spending on big transportation -infrastructure projects is that they're a tougher sell than expected, or at least that voters
don't necessarily see them as the economic generators they eventually become So, for example, the president insisted that the federal stimulus act include $8 billion for high-speed rail, but then absorbed a great deal of grief over
ensuing allocations, which were criticized as politically motivated. And while spending on less costly projects has been easier for the administration, politically, it has also been less rewarding. For instance, the stimulus included $1.5
billion in funding for so-called TIGER grants, a small pot of money (it was later expanded to $2.6 billion) thats been sprinkled around the country. They hardly got noticed nationally, other than by transportation advocates, who felt
they were too small to make any meaningful change to the physical transportation system itself. (There was a total of $48 billion in stimulus spending on projects around the country, but aside from the high-speed rail component and
the TIGER grants, those funds are generally considered to have been inserted at the initiative of Congressional leaders and were not part of a coordinated national transportation strategy.) The reforms that transportation boosters have
in mind are, generally speaking, more profound: an ongoing commitment to paying for large capital projects and maintenance of existing infrastructure; sustainable sources of revenue to offset that cost; alterations to the system of
incentives that drive commercial and residential growth, and to the metrics that measure the efficiency and cost of moving people around their regions and across the country. The federal tax code subsidizes some really bad
development, says Andrew Goldberg, managing director of government relations at the American Institute of Architects, which has advocated tax-code reforms. A lot of the funding goes toward sprawl, toward building where land
is cheapest." I know this isnt sexy," said Schank, "but he could direct D.O.T. to start doing the research necessary to implement real performance measures and accountability for transportation. In other words, the administration
could lay out a precise vision for how it would like to see the money it controls spent, and support that vision accordingly. The American Society of Engineers says theres a $3 trillion backlog in surface transportation spending. The
United States spends a mere 2.4 percent of its G.D.P. on transportation and water infrastructure, compared to Europes 5 percent and Chinas 9. Many transportation experts also argue for a significantly higher tax on gas. This is
politically difficult, if not impossible, as illustrated by the way Republicans have latched onto currently high gas prices as an argument against Obama, and the president's high-profile response, cheerleading the expansion of domestic
oil and gas exploration as a solution. But the fact is gas here is cheap, relatively speaking: Americans are likely at any given time to be paying about half as much for fuel as Europeans. Yet gas-related revenue is where much of the
nations infrastructure funding comes from. Weve got one of the lowest federal gasoline taxes in the world, said Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association. The other countries that have gasoline taxes as low as ours
include Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. And thats not the only issue with the gas tax, which is about 18 cents per gallon and which provides much of the funding for the nation's highways and mass transit
(New Yorks M.T.A. derives some $1 billion from it per year). It's not pegged to inflation, so it provides ever less revenue in real terms. Also, it's a victim of its own success: Today, thanks in part to the fact that the gas tax makes it
more expensive to burn fuel, cars are much more fuel-efficient. Less consumption equals less revenue. But while transit-dedicated revenue from gas is going down, the need to spend money on the nation's aging transportation
infrastructure is going up. The interstate system, most of it is already approaching half a century old, says Yaro. Its at the end of its useful life. Big stretches need to be rebuilt and theres no money to rebuild them, much less create
any new capacity in the system." The president, at least rhetorically, recognizes that. He's proposed a half-trillion-dollar, six-year transportation plan. And hes suggested a $50 billion infrastructure bank that would leverage private
funding. As of now, they're still just proposals. So far he hasnt really put his political capital behind it because he has other priorities, said Schank. In this years
State of the Union, the president made a strong argument for infrastructure spending. During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge, he said. After World War II, we connected our States
with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today. In the next few weeks, I will
sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. "But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use
the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. The you in that sentence was Congress. But the Republican-controlled House is looking to cut
transportation spending, not increase it. It will be all the president can do to get them to agree to pass the Senate's
version of this year's transportation-spending bill, which more or less extends the status quo. The White House hasnt recommended funding sources, and the Congress has been
reluctant to propose new revenues, says Yaro, of the Regional Plan Association. House Republicans in particular have staked
out a radical position on infrastructure funding, going so far as to propose eliminating mass-transit financing entirely from the gas tax.


Link Maritime Transportation General
Maritime transportation funding trades off with other agenda items election year
and spending concerns
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation, environmental, and legislative
issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy
administrator of the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also former
majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 3-21-2014 United States:
Congress Funds The Agencies And Looks Ahead To FY2015
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/301526/Marine+Shipping/Congress+Funds+the+Agencies DA:
6/7/14

For the first time in many years, Congress actually enacted 12 appropriation bills to fund the Federal Government through September 30, 2014.
This was done in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub.L. 113-76). As a result, the federal maritime and transportation agencies have the budgets they need to get some important work done. The following is a summary of the key provisions of the
FY2014 budget. A forecast of where Congress is going this year in regards to major maritime legislation will be included in the conclusion of this article. Highlights of the FY2014 Budget Agreement Congress enabled the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act by first passing the
Bipartisan Budget Act (Pub.L. 113-67). The Bipartisan Budget Act established the overall funding limits for the federal government for 2014- 2015. The Budget Act also represents the first time in four years that Congress has actually passed a budget agreement. The budget was negotiated
between Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Cong. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the respective chairs of the Senate and House Budget Committees. As the two leaders have publicly stated, they worked off the art of the possible, not what they knew they couldn't reach agreement on. From the levels set
in the budget agreement, the appropriation committees could perform their jobsfunding the federal government at least for FY2014. Below are some of the highlights of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The Department of Transportation $600Mfor capital investments in surface
transportation infrastructurethe so-called TIGER grantsto fund infrastructure projects of regional and national significance, including a set-aside of $35Mfor planning grants. U.S. Maritime Administration: $186Mfor the Maritime Security Program to preserve the U.S. flag merchant
fleet; $38.5Mfor the subsidy cost of title XI loan guarantees for shipbuilding; and $16Mfor the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and $11.3Mfor the state maritime academies. Infrastructure projects at ports are eligible for the TIGER programand, on average, have received about 10 percent
of the funding to date. Setting aside money for planning grants is a new allocation for the TIGER program. Finally, funding the title XI programrepresents a new infusion of cash for the shipbuilding loan guarantee program. With a subsidy amount of 10 percent, this will enable the Maritime
Administration to fund close to $400Min new shipbuilding loans. With a new (Acting) Administrator at the helm of the Maritime Administration, one hopes that the title XI program is resuscitated and the cumbersome review procedures streamlined. The Department of Homeland Security
FEMA: A total of $1.5B for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, including $466.3Mfor the State Homeland Security ("HLS") Grant Program, $600Mfor the Urban Area Security Initiative, and $100Mfor port security grants. Ports, with the support of the American Association of
Port Authorities ("AAPA"), successfully fought back against the Administration's proposal to consolidate all HLS grants into one block grant to states, fearing they might not get their fair share from state agencies. Although $100Mis considerably less than the $400Mauthorized for these
grants in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, at least it gives ports a separate bucket to shoot at. U.S. Coast Guard: A total of $1.375B for acquisition, construction, and improvements, including the cost of production of the 7th National Security Cutter ("NSC") and the contract
for long-lead time materials for the 8th NSC. (Huntington Ingalls has the contract for long-lead time materials for the 7th NSC.) Admiral Papp, Commandant of the Coast Guard, has hinted that he is looking to fund the 8th (and final) NSC in the FY2015 budget, continue work on the
Offshore Patrol Cutter, and perhaps start work on a new icebreaker in the FY2015 budget. (As reported in Seapower Magazine on January 24, 2014.) With the Coast Guard's newly released Arctic Strategy, it makes sense to look at its icebreaking capabilities. (For a copy of the Strategy, see:
www.uscg.mil/seniorleadership/DOCS/CG_Arctic_Strategy.pdf.) Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"): A total of $10.6B for security, enforcement, and investigations, including $351Mfor border security fencing and $805Mfor air and marine operations. This budget will enable CBP to
add 2,000 more agents at U.S. ports of entry. (And they say we don't spend enough on border security!) >The Department of Defense U.S. Navy: A total of $15B for shipbuilding and conversion of naval vessels, to remain available until obligated until September 30, 2018, provided no funds
for construction are spent in a foreign yard. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A total of $1.656T (from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) to remain available until expended for the construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, and restoration. The
Secretary of the Army may initiate up to four new construction starts (three for navigation, one for environmental restoration), provided the Secretary sends Congress a report on out-year funding for the new starts. The Environmental Protection Agency $20Min clean diesel engine or Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act ("DERA") grants. These grants can be used by private companies and public transit agencies to purchase new diesel engines or to upgrade existing ones and are funded through a coalition of regional and nonprofit entities. (For more information on the DERA
Program, see www.epa.gov/diesel/grantfund.htm.) The Department of the Interior For the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: $166.8Mfor leases for oil and gas, other minerals, and energy on the Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS"). For the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement: $122.7Mfor regulation of activities on the OCS. Summary of the FY14 Budget Agreement and Outlook for FY2015 Now that agencies have budgets that last through FY2014, they can begin to plan, issue contracts, and begin to award grants. The Department of Transportation
("DOT"), Department of Homeland Security ("DHS")/ Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") all have grant-making authority. The White House will submit its FY2015 budget request to Congress the first week of March 2014. In
the meantime, Congress sent the President a clean bill raising the debt limit ceiling until March. Outlook for Other 2014 Congressional Actions The House-Senate Conference on the Water Resources
Development Act ("WRDA"), which funds port dredging and maintenance, is still underway despite this author's predictions it would be wrapped up by now. Cong. Bud Shuster, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure ("T&I") Committee, admitted (at a recent Bloomberg
Government conference) that it's been "slow going ." The passage of funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, above, may have taken some pressure off this Conference. On February 11, 2014, the House T&I Committee ordered reported H.R. 4005,
the "Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of 2014," with a manager's amendment. The amendment included new cargo preference requirements. We will address these amendments in detail in a separate advisory. Any urgent maritime problemthat needs a legislative fix should be
addressed in this major maritime legislation, which Congress usually passes every two years. Chairman Shuster and the Administration have both begun work on principles for the next surface transportation bill. The current lawMoving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,
commonly referred to as MAP-21expires this coming September. The main issue for reauthorization is how to fund the Highway Trust Fund. Congress balked last time and is very reluctant to get near an increased gas tax, especially in an election year. In fact, both Chairman Shuster and
Chairman Barbara Boxer (of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee) have written off the gas tax increase as a funding solution for "MAP-22." Other options include use of repatriated overseas revenues and a user fee based on vehicle miles travelled (or "VMT"). It will be up
to the Ways and Means Committee in the House and the Senate Finance Committee to determine how to fund the next round of surface transportation projects. While the surface transportation bill is largely focused on roads and bridges, there is an increasing focus on a national freight
network. The current freight network, which is under review at the DOT, is limited to highways and needs to be expanded to include ports. Even the President in his State of the Union Address identified the need to upgrade our ports. After all, how do goods come i nto and out of the U.S.,
except through our ports? This year is an election year , so it remains to be seen how many difficult issues the 113th Congress
will address before the election. Hope is higher for actions on controversial issues, such as taxes and tax reform, during the lame duck sessionboth post-election and
before the new Congress is sworn in. This may provide the window needed to pass a Coast Guard authorization bill, a new surface transportation bill, and even perhaps some type of immigration reform bill.
Link Port Dredging
Port dredging costs PC budget crisis
AP, 6-21-2012, Report to Congress says seaports on Southeast, Gulf coasts need deeper water for giant ships, The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/report-to-congress-says-seaports-on-southeast-gulf-coasts-need-deeper-water-for-giant-
ships/2012/06/21/gJQAjzrJtV_story.html)

U.S. seaports in the Southeast likely need up to $5 billion to deepen their shipping channels so they can trade with supersized cargo ships expected
to arrive soon through an expanded Panama Canal, a federal agency said Thursday in a report to Congress. The budget crisis has made federal funding
for port projects extremely tight, especially since Congress and President Barack Obama for the past two
years have sworn off so-called earmark spending that was used to fund such projects in the past. The Army
Corps report said current funding levels for port improvements wont cover all the projects that should be done. If Congress wont increase the agencys
funding for harbor projects, the report said, then perhaps state governments and private companies such as shipping lines should be required to pay a greater share.

Port dredging unpopular funding and fights about choosing ports.
AP U.S. ports race to keep up with bigger Panama Canal 2-7-2011
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-02-07-panama-canal_N.htm DA: 6/5/14

"Certainly every port is counting on it having a big impact," said Bernard Groseclose, former chief executive of South Carolina's seaports who
now works as a private consultant. "Everyone is telling the same story: We're getting ready for the Panama Canal expansion." But getting
funding may have just gotten tougher. Federal dollars used for dredging projects and the studies required
to approve them typically get added to congressional budget bills as "earmarks" line items requested by individual lawmakers to benefit
their districts back home. Yet earmark spending was widely denounced as government waste in the 2010 elections that swept
Republicans back in control of the U.S. House. As a result, GOP lawmakers in both the House and Senate have sworn off earmarks for the time
being. It's not clear how else port projects would obtain federal money. "It has the potential to have a dramatic impact," said Nagle, who insists
port projects aren't waste. "There clearly is a distinction between these types of projects and what is typically the target of the ban." Both Nagle
and Groseclose agree not all ports seeking to supersize their harbors will get approved and both don't think every U.S.
port needs to be deep enough for the largest ships. But some are questioning how the federal government decides which
projects move forward. In studies finished last November that recommend deepening Savannah's harbor, the Army Corps of Engineers
concludes the project would have economic benefits for the nation as a whole the benchmark for the agency's approval. But what the Army
Corps hasn't done is take a comprehensive look at all East Coast ports to determine how many should be dredged to post-Panamax depths and
which would reap the most benefits for the best price. "The Corps is evaluating the cost and benefits of these individual proposals in a vacuum,"
said Chris DeScherer, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center. "Where does it make the most sense on the East Coast to have a
deep water port? Where does the American taxpayer get the most bang for his buck with the least environmental impact?" The Army Corps said
it hasn't done a broader study to compare ports, in part, because no one has asked. The Corps doesn't have the authority to initiate port studies on
its own. "To date, there has been no request by the ports or Congress to undertake a comprehensive study," said Jim Walker, chief of the
Navigation Program for the Army Corps of Engineers.

Link Bering Strait Tunnel
The plan would cause a massive political firestormits viewed as a ridiculous pork
project
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 2006 (How pet projects in Alaska became pet peeve on Hill, July 25, lexis)

Thomas Pease's flower-scented backyard might seem to be an odd place for a battle over federal spending. But the Government Hill neighborhood he calls home
has become a front in the fight against pet projects in Congress. That's because land just a block from Mr. Pease's home could be ripped apart
if plans for a major bridge proceed. Officially, it's called the Knik Arm Crossing. But the US public knows it by a different name: the "bridge to nowhere." And ever since it
drew headlines last fall, it's become a poster child for congressional earmarks. Earmarks are items that lawmakers on Capitol Hill tuck into spending
bills to fund projects back home. Supporters call it investment. Critics call it "pork." Both call it one of the biggest issues
in American politics this year. "I couldn't believe our little neighborhood fight was actually going national," says Pease, an elementary schoolt eacher who opposes the bridge
plan. "But I certainly thought the name was appropriate." Actually, the "bridge to nowhere" refers to two bridges. One is the Knik Arm Crossing, which would connect Alaska's largest city with
a little-used port on the other side of a glacier-fed channel that drains into the Pacific. The other is a span that would link Ketchikan, Alaska, to sparsely populated Gravina Island. They initially
received earmarks of $231 million and $223 million in last year's transportation-funding bill. The moniker resonated across the nation last fall and
spurred a revolt - both in public and in the halls of Congress - against wasteful federal spending. "Those
three words changed the view of millions of how we spend money on a federal level," says the man who coined the
phrase, Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington watchdog group. Spans divide Alaska Even in Alaska, which leads the nation in per-capita pork-barrel
spending, locals were divided over the merits of the projects. In a December survey of Anchorage residents by pollster Ivan Moore, 46 percent opposed the Knik Arm Crossing, while 44 percent
favored it. When told that the earmark was removed and that the state could spend the money on any transportation project, a stronger majority - 56 percent - wanted to use the money elsewhere.
"It's obviously not a high priority," Mr. Moore says. Supporters defend the bridge as economically vital to Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the fastest-growing district in Alaska.
Alaska has as much right to a large bridge as any other state, they say. "The Golden Gate was a bridge to nowhere. Mackinac back in Michigan was a bridge to nowhere,'" says former
Anchorage Mayor George Wuerch, chairman of the state-funded Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, the organization overseeing bridge plans. "This is not a bridge to nowhere. These are the
two fastest-growing populations of this state." Alaska's veteran Sen. Ted Stevens (R), a legend for his ability to funnel federal funds home, has argued that critics fail to grasp the bridge's
historic mission. "What they forget was that in the Western movement of the country, if the people who were paying the taxes at that time said it was wasteful to build roads to the West we
would have never had the West," he told Anchorage reporters last year, as criticism of the bridges crescendoed. Proponents, who hope the Knik Arm Crossing will be built by 2010, say it will
open up new, lower-cost land needed for development. Already, speculators have started buying property on the other side of Knik Arm, where the bridge is expected to deliver traffic. But
skeptics here say the project would promote sprawl and, with a cost estimate of between $600 million and $2 billion, it would divert resources from revitalizing Anchorage itself. Routing traffic
to this spot in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is impractical, they add, because it's not near population centers. Critics also worry about the effect on beluga whales and other wildlife. View
from Government Hill In Government Hill, Anchorage's oldest neighborhood, the bridge debate is about more than budgets. Locals fear the planned access road for the bridge would ruin the
quality of life, bringing traffic, congestion, and general degradation. "At the risk of sounding like a radical, there's something undemocratic about having to defend your home from the
government," Pease says. In a city dominated by cookie-cutter condos and sprawling McMansion subdivisions, Government Hill is a throwback. Architectural masterpieces mix with refurbished
Quonset huts and old-fashioned cabins. Its location on a bluff above downtown Anchorage gives it a microclimate warm enough for local gardeners such as Pease to grow apples, cherries, and
other delicacies rarely found in Alaska. The social atmosphere is also warm. Government Hill denizens were invited recently to a celebratory picnic thrown by a pair of newlyweds and, Pease
says, residents are known to barter garden produce for salmon. "It's one of the few neighborhoods in Anchorage that has a real neighborhood feel to it," says Stephanie Kesler, president of the
Government Hill Community Council. The Knik Arm Bridge idea, too, has a long history, proposed in various forms since the 1950s, with boosters even then claiming Anchorage lacked
sufficient space for development. Justifications abound. The "world-wide recognition which would accompany the construction of this unique and monumental project would certainly be
valuable to the State of Alaska," said a 1972 study prepared for the state Department of Highways. A state that inspires grand thinking Such thinking may have
spurred other mega-projects once embraced by state leaders but never realized. They have had plans to: *
Drop hydrogen bombs to carve out a deepwater port off northwest Alaska. * Erect a domed city near Mount McKinley. * Gouge a Bering Strait railroad tunnel
to Russia. * Hook up a water pipeline to California. "We live in a grand state, and it inspires grand thinking, which can be a
good thing until you take it to extremes. And then it gets a little ridiculous," says bridge opponent Emily Ferry, coordinator of the
Alaska Transportation Priorities Project in Juneau.
Costs PC push needed to overcome opposition
Barry, 11 [Mark, Senior Fellow for Public Policy, Summit Council for World Peace, 10-4-2011, Universal Peace Federation,
http://www.upf.org/programs/bering-strait-project/4017-mp-barry-advancing-the-bering-strait-tunnel-project-in-the-united-states-and-canada]
For international and strategic reasons, a sustained lobbying effort in Washington, DC, and Ottawa eventually will be
necessary, but at present any effort in either capital would probably not make much difference. Promoting critical
components of a Bering Strait crossing, such as an Alaska Canada Rail Link, will have to be a private sector-led effort, and the farther away from the Pacific Northwest you
are, the less awareness and interest there is in this railroad. An ACRL will have to first garner widespread support from Alaska, Yukon, and Alberta, which in the
long run will be much more effective. A high profile and costly Washington, DC, lobbying office is not relevant or needed at this stage.
Congress will move only when the private interests are on board and jobs are quantified. This support will only happen from the ground up -- from Alaska
to Washington, DC (and from western Canada to Ottawa), and not the other way around. Regional support, in both the private and public sectors, for an ACRL must be very strong over a sustained period in order to get Congresss
attention.
Link Ice Breakers
Ice breakers cost PC funding is controversial
Stew Magnuson is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist June 2013, Sticker Shock: $1 Billion for
New Icebreaker
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/June/Pages/StickerShock$1BillionforNewIcebrea
ker.aspx DA: 6/6/14

The cost to build one new polar icebreaker for the Coast Guard may top $1 billion, a Congressional Research Service report recently stated. And thats in
2012 dollars. When work will start in earnest and how much it will cost when it begins is still unknown. Chronically
underfunded even in the best of fiscal times , the Coast Guard spends about $900 million per year to recapitalize all its ships and aircraft. Its the equivalent of telling the
Navy they have to suddenly fund another aircraft carrier, said Patrick Bright, chief analytical officer at AMI International, a shipbuilding consulting firm in Bremerton, Wash. Brian Slattery, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation,
said, Even if the icebreaker was the only acquisition priority for the Coast Guard, it would be tough to afford it. The service has known for decades that its statutory obligation to be the sole federal agency responsible for busting
through polar ice was at risk. A 1983 polar icebreaking requirements study it produced spelled out the upcoming shortages. Design of a new icebreaker should start immediately, emphasizing research as well as escort and logistics
capabilities, and should reflect the needs of both primary and secondary users, the report stated. Since then, the service was forced to retire several icebreakers and was only allocated the funding to build one, the Healy. It is a
medium-size ship intended for scientific research, and was not commissioned until 16 years after the 1983 report. The Coast Guard now only has two heavy polar icebreakers remaining, the Polar Star and Polar Sea, which have
exceeded their 30-year service lives and have been in and out of mothballs for several years. Polar Star, after undergoing repairs, returned to service in December after six years of being docked. After upgrades, it is expected to last
another seven to 10 years, said the March 2013 CRS report, Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization, authored by Ronald ORourke. Polar Sea broke down in 2010 and is no longer operational, the report added. A 2011 study
for Congress said one heavy icebreaker would cost $800 million to $925 million based on 2008 dollars, but by 2012 it would swell to $900 million to $1 billion. The Coast Guard has requested relatively small amounts in the 2013 and
2014 budgets $8 million and $2 million respectively to kick off the acquisition program with an eye toward awarding a contract in about five years, and delivery in 10, about the time Polar Star would be decommissioned.
ORourke said Congress will have to decide whether it will fund a new ship all at once, or incrementally. A one-year allocation may come at the expense of other
shipbuilding programs, he noted. The Coast Guard during the corresponding 10 years will be attempting to acquire some 25 offshore patrol cutters, one of its most expensive acquisition programs to date. It is currently
having a hard time completing its fleet of eight national security cutters. It is requesting funding for the seventh for fiscal year 2014. Whether it will receive the greenlight from
Congress to build the eighth in these austere budgetary times remains to be seen. The national security cutter, a sophisticated ship with expensive
weapons, communications and sensors, costs almost half the amount of an icebreaker, which doesnt require any of those high-tech systems, Bright said. The unique ships use mass and velocity to move through frozen waters. As they
are propelled forward, they move up onto the ice, and the weight of the hull breaks it. That requires a large ship with powerful engines, a 2007 National Academies study on the Coast Guards icebreaker fleet stated. It also has
reinforced steel and a double hull at the bow in case of a breach. Protecting the rudders and propellers or propulsion units is of paramount importance in icebreaker hull design, it also stated. They must not protrude from the ship.
Despite the lack of weapons and other high-tech systems, there are also special items that go on those ships, and that jacks prices up, Bright said. And at 13,000 to 17,000 tons, that is an awful lot of steel to buy, he added. Slattery
said the seven- to 10-year estimate of additional service life for the Polar Star is generous. It is unrealistic that that replacement vessel will come online by the time they are going to have to pull the Polar Star out for good, he
added. It has been about 40 years since U.S. industry has built a heavy icebreaker. The medium-sized Healy was built by Avondale Shipyards in Louisiana, which has changed hands twice and is now owned by Huntington Ingalls
Industries. It announced its plans to shutter the old Avondale yard this year, then reversed course, and said it would now build oil and gas exploration equipment, according to a company press release. Even $200 million per year in
incremental funding would be a pretty significant chunk of the entire recapitalization budget, Slattery said. Thats not the worst of it. This high pricetag is only for one vessel. The
requirements on the books call for three medium and three heavy icebreakers, he noted. The Healy is essentially a research vessel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he pointed out. The Heritage Foundation
has suggested leasing private icebreakers to at least mitigate the gap in capability. That would provide the government with the most essential capability, which is breaking the ice so we can get to places that regular vessels cannot get
to. ORourke said along with leasing, there have also been plans to ask other federal agencies such as the Navy, which benefit from the icebreakers, to chip in some of the money. During a recent budget hearing, Sen. Lisa
Murkowski, R-Alaska, chair of the homeland security appropriations committee, said lawmakers would look for icebreaker funding from outside the Department of Homeland Security budget, according to SeaPower Magazine. Adm.
Robert Papp Jr., commandant of the Coast Guard, testified at a different hearing that there were no icebreakers available in the world to lease. A for-hire ship would have to be purpose-built, the CRS report said. It almost seems
like one of those things that is never going to happen based on price , Bright said.
Icebreakers are controversial Obama push for upgrades opposed by GOP
Mike M. Ahlers, senior producer, transportation and regulation, for CNN Polar icebreaker dispute ties
up Coast Guard appropriations. 11-3-2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/politics/congress-polar-
icebreakers/ DA: 6/6/14

With the nation's only two heavy-duty polar icebreakers broken and out of service, the Obama administration and congressional Republicans are
clashing on how best to put the U.S. Coast Guard back into the ice-busting business. House Republicans, who say they want to force the administration's hand, are pushing a Coast Guard
appropriations bill that would decommission the icebreaker Polar Star, which is now being repaired, in just three years, saying that keeping the 35- year-old ship afloat is "throwing good
money after bad." The bill requires the administration to come up with a comprehensive plan to replace the aging icebreaker fleet. On Thursday, the administration responded by announcing it is
opposing the appropriations bill, citing the icebreaker issue. Decommissioning the Polar Star would "create a significant gap in the nation's icebreaking capacity," the administration said. The ship is
needed until long-term plans can be developed, it said. The icebreaker issue is one that has been decades in the making, and has gained urgency with the thawing of ice in the
Arctic Circle. Diminishing ice, widely believed to be caused by global warming, may actually increase the need for icebreakers, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service. The opening of waterways could
lead to expanded commercial, cruise and military ship operations, and increase exploration for oil and other resources, the report says. The Coast Guard uses icebreakers to defend U.S. sovereignty and interests, monitor sea traffic,
launch search and rescue missions, conduct fisheries and law enforcement operations, and support scientific research, including resupplying McMurdo Station in Antarctica, a mission that is now contracted to Russian and Swedish
icebreakers. Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard has only three Polar icebreakers -- the Polar Star and its sister ship the Polar Sea, and the newer but less robust medium polar icebreaker Healy. In addition, the National Science
Foundation leases a smaller ship, Nathaniel B. Palmer, for research in the Antarctic. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Polar Sea has also exceeded its 30-year design life. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Polar Sea has also exceeded its 30-year
design life. Both the Polar Star and Polar Sea have already exceeded their 30-year design life, and both have been removed from service because of breakdowns. The Polar Star was laid up in 2006, and the Polar Sea suffered
unexpected engine problems in June 2010, and it has been out of service ever since. Since mid-2010, the United States has had no heavy-duty icebreaker. Russia, which has a much larger Arctic border, has a fleet of about 20
icebreakers, including seven nuclear-powered ones. The Coast Guard says it needs at least three heavy and three medium polar icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions, but would require even more ships if the Coast Guard is to
comply with a Naval Operations Concept issued in 2010 requiring a presence in both the Arctic and Antarctic. The Coast Guard also has a fleet of icebreakers in the Great Lakes that keep shipping lanes open there. The Congressional
Research Service said one potential concern for Congress is the absence of a plan for replacing the Polar Star upon completion of its seven- to 10-year life after it returns to service in late 2012. That is why Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-
New Jersey, included the provision to decommission the Polar Star, said spokesman Jason Galanes. "We absolutely support the Arctic icebreaker mission," Galanes said. "We're forcing this decision rather then allowing the
administration to kick the can down the road." In a statement, the Office of Management and Budget said the administration "strongly opposes" the provision, and
that the repairs to the Polar Star "will stabilize the United States' existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking capability requirements are finalized."
Icebreakers cause controversy spending concerns and tied to climate debate
Andrew Holland is the senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project, a non-
partisan national security think tank 9-26-2013 America is failing to meet challenges of a changing
Arctic http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meet-challenges-changing-
arctic DA: 6/7/14

Americas Arctic, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness have made it difficult for us to take
advantage of the vast resourcesand enormous opportunity of the region. Today, the Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history.
Open water is darker colored than ice, so it collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below historical averages and maintains a
downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil
fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources
under the waters surface and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel
resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our
"Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer
sea ice is completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska. But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies
that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face i n a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is
insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe navigation north of the Bering Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy
exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as "only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened
international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships fromaround the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker
Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust sol ely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji Sekimizu, the
Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In t he absence of American action, Russia will certainly set the standards. The United States has not fully
claimed territory in the Arctic to the fullest extent of International Law because the U.S. Congress refuses to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The other
four nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole. They are party t o decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out
because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally, we need a military presence in order to maintain the security in our
sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today, neither the U.S. Navy nor the U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on strategic
patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is undergoing sea trials for its return to service
after an extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14 budget includes $2 million for plans for a
new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million. In todays federal budget
environment, even the $2 million outlay is uncertain. In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently
constructing what will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly committed to expanding their naval presence. Perhaps it is because
of the political paralysis on climate policyinCongress and in state governments that it is impossible to have a rational debate about the
impacts of climate change. So long as a large portion of our political system refuses to acknowledge the very existence climate change -- even in the face
of clear evidence across Alaska, we will not be able to make the investments necessary to take advantage of a changing Arctic.
Icebreakers causes fights Obama and Congress at odds over strategy
AP 11-4-2011 Congress and White House differ over icebreakers. http://townhall.com/news/politics-
elections/2011/11/04/congress_and_white_house_differ_over_icebreakers DA: 6/6/14

The country's only two heavy-duty icebreaker ships are old and broken, and Congress and the White House are at odds over how to
respond as the melting of polar ice increases the economic and security stakes in the Arctic region. The House on Friday was working on a Coast Guard spending bill that would decommission the Polar
Star , slated to be the last somewhat seaworthy icebreaker after its sister ship, the Polar Sea, goes out of service in the near future. The White House , in a statement issued Thursday, said it "strongly opposes" the legislation
because decommissioningthe Polar Star would "create a significant gap in the nation's icebreaking capacity." In the Senate, Sen . Maria Cantwell , D-Wash., is trying to block the decommissioning of either ship with a provision she added to a Coast Guard bill.
The ships are based in the Seattle area and support hundreds of jobs there. "Our nation needs icebreakers," she said at the committee meeting. "With Russia moving many troops to the Arctic, and Chinese investors buying parts of Greenland, this is also a national security issue." There's little
disagreement on the need for a U.S. presence in the Arctic. The Congressional Research Service, in a report last year, said the shrinking of the icecap will result in increased commercial and military ship activity and greater exploration for oil and other resources. That calls into demand the
functions of icebreakers: defending U.S. sovereignty and economic interests, monitoring sea traffic, law enforcement, conduct ing search and rescue operations and scientific research. " We desperately need the Coast Guard and the administration to do what we have asked them to do really
now for more than 10 years _ define what our mission is in the Arctic ," said Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Coast Guard subcommittee. He said it costs tens of millions of dollars a year to keep the two vessels tied up at the
dock, and he hopes the House move to take them out of service will push the administration into deciding how large a fleet is needed in the future. The lone Alaska congressmen, Republican Don Young, opposes decommissioning icebreakers and wants to increase the number of vessels in
any way possible, spokesman Luke Miller said. Young has introduced a bill that would authorize the Coast Guard to enter into long-term lease agreements for two new icebreakers. The icebreakers are supposed to have a 30-year service life. The Polar Star, commissioned in 1976, is docked
in Seattle, in caretaker status since 2006. The Polar Sea, commissioned in 1978, suffered an engine breakdown last year and has been out of service. The Coast Guard also has a third, medium-duty icebreaker, the Healy, that is used mainly for scientific research. The White House said
Congress has previously approved funds to reactivate the Polar Star by the end of next year, extending the life of the ship for seven to 10 years . That, it said, "will stabilize the United States' existing polar fleet until long-termicebreaking capability requirements are finalized.

Security
Link Maritime Security General
Maritime security costs PC Obama pushes, causes poison pill additions and
controversy
Sonia Drobysz. Associate Research Fellow. Bernard Sitt 6-20-2013 Prospects for the latest US
nuclear security bill http://www.vertic.org/pages/posts/prospects-for-the-latest-us-nuclear-security-bill-
520.php DA: 6/9/14

On 20 May, the United States House of Representatives voted in favour of An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for protection of maritime
navigation and prevention of nuclear terrorism, and for other purposes. Adopted with a 390-3 vote, bill H.R. 1073 was introduced on 12 March by Republican Representative JimSensenbrenner. He explained that the
legislation had been prepared in full cooperation with Democratic colleagues. The so-called Nuclear Terrorism Conventions Implementation and Safety of Maritime Navigation Act of 2013 is the implementing legislation for four major nuclear security and terrorismtreaties: the
International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism(ICSANT), the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM amendment), and two 2005 protocols to the Convention concerning Safety of Maritime Navigation and to the
Protocol concerning Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf. The Senate adopted resolutions of advice and consent for all four treaties ratification in 2008 (see, for example, Senate Report on Resolution of advice and consent t o ICSANT ratification), declaring that certain
provisions were self-executing. As noted in the resolutions, however, other provisions obligate the US to criminalize certain offenses, make those offenses punishable by appropriate penalties, and authorize t he assertion of jurisdiction over such offenses. United States Code Title 18 on
crimes and criminal procedure should therefore be amended to set up a comprehensive domestic legal framework indispensable to combatting terrorist threats effectively, as sponsor James Sensenbrenner pointed out. Fromthat perspective, bill H.R. 1073 defines and clarifies key treaty
terms such as radioactive material, nuclear material, nuclear facility, and device. It also provides for new offences and associated penalties, including maritime terrorismacts and the maritime transport of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons (BCN weapons), unlawful
possession and use of radioactive material with the intent to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment, as well as attempts, threats, and conspiracies to commit these offenses. Damaging or interfering with the operation of a nuclear facility in a
manner that causes the release of or increases the risk of the release of radioactive material, causes radioactive contamination or exposure to radiation is also criminalized. As explained in House report 113-85, U.S criminal jurisdiction is expanded over, for instance, prohibited activities
against U.S. ships to include not just those ships flying the flag of the United States, but also a vessel of the United States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Prohibited activities committed by a United States corporation or legal entity would also fall within US
jurisdiction, in addition to those committed by a national of the United States or by a stateless person whose habitual residence is the United States. Furthermore, national enforcement measures are strengthened, updating grounds permitting the master of a ship to deliver an offender to
another state, under certain conditions, to include the new offenses. House report 113-85 rightly emphasizes that the legislation enhances U.S. national security by modernizing and strengthening the international counterterrorismand counter proliferation legal framework and improving
multilateral efforts to combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and complements important United States priorities such as the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the Washington Nuclear Security Summit, and the Proliferation Security Initiative. Effective national
implementation measures for radiological and nuclear treaties and related instruments are in fact crucial to help combat the illicit trafficking and misuse of nucl ear and radioactive materials. Leaders at the 2010 Washington and 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summits encouraged all States to
enhance their physical protection of and accounting system for nuclear materials, emergency preparedness and response capabiliti es and relevant legal and regulatory framework. The IAEA Nuclear Security Plan for 2010-2013 also affirms the need to enhance the global nuclear security
framework, especially through facilitation of implementation of the international legal instruments relevant for nuclear security, including the CPPNMamendment and ICSANT. Adoption of effective implementing legislation in the US would be in line with such objectives and should also,
as noted by the House report, reinforce the United States leading role in promoting these and other counterterrorismtreaties and will prompt other States Parties to join. But as the bill moves to Senate, its future
remains uncertain . Previous attempts to adopt similar legislation failed in 2012. Measures on the application of the
death penaltyfor certain nuclear terrorism offences and on extension of federal wiretappingauthority to specifically include investigations related to a nuclear incident turned the project into a
legislative quagmire . Removal of such measures allowed the House to pass the bill on 28 June 2012, but pushed Senate Judiciary Committee
Ranking Member Charles Grassleytooppose the bill and reintroduce the contentious language. As explained by Republican co-sponsor John Conyers on March 14, the 2013 proposal is free of proposed
language that seemed entirely [] outside the scope of underlying treaties. He explained: the Administration's original proposal expanded the scope of conduct subject to the death penalty, including new wiretap predicates, and authorized the President to conduct similar agreements in the
future without congressional approval. These controversial provisions are not necessary in order to implement the underlying treaties, and I am grateful for the spirit of cooperation in which the bill before us has been drafted. The National Journal and Global Security Newswire reported that
Senator Grassley, for his part, would now be willing to consider the bill on the Senate floor with a time agreement and a vote on the death penalty. John Conyers nonetheless noted that the bipartisan proposal has the full backing
of the Obama Administration, is virtually identical to a bill that passed by voice vote in this committee and House last Congress, and accordingly urge[d] all the members to support the bill. Hopefully Senators will hear him, so efforts to effectively implement
nuclear security and terrorism conventions can be pursued.

Link Maritime Security Arctic
Arctic security links budget and overstretch concerns, gets tied to climate change
debate
Andrew Holland is the senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project, a non-
partisan national security think tank 9-26-2013 America is failing to meet challenges of a changing
Arctic http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meet-challenges-changing-
arctic DA: 6/7/14

Americas Arctic, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness have made it difficult for us to take
advantage of the vast resources and enormous opportunity of the region. Today, the Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open
water is darker colored than ice, so it collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below historical averages and maintains a downward
trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels.
Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the
waters surface and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources
causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive
Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles fromthe coast). The other major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is
completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska. But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will
allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is
insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe navigation north of the Bering Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can
handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic
as "only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being
ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile,
earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action, Russia will certainly set
the standards. The United States has not fully claimed territory in the Arctic to the fullest extent of International Law because the U.S. Congress
refuses to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The other four nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole. They
are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally, we
need a military presence in order to maintain the securityin our sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today, neither the U.S. Navy nor the U.S.
Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines
beneath the surface on strategic patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her
intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14 budget includes $2 million for plans for a new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million. In todays federal budget environment, even
the $2 million outlay is uncertain. In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently constructing what will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias
largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly committed to expanding their naval presence. Perhaps it is because of the political paralysis on
climate policyinCongress and in state governments that it is impossible to have a rational debate about the impacts of climate change. So long as a large portion of
our political system refuses to acknowledge the very existence climate change -- even in the face of clear evidence across Alaska, we will not be able
to make the investments necessary to take advantage of a changing Arctic.
Link Littoral Combat Ships
Littoral combat ships cost PC Congressional opposition to funding
Valerie Insinna Staff Writer at National Defense Magazine April 2014 Littoral Combat Ship Faces
Uncertain Future
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2014/April/Pages/LittoralCombatShipFacesUncertainFu
ture.aspx DA: 6/11/14

On Feb. 24, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel confirmed rumors that had been swirling around the [LCS] littoral combat ship program for months instead of going forward with its planned 52 ship buy, purchases
would be limited to 32. The cuts were no surprise to anyone who had been following the program, which has long been troubled by cost
overruns and reports of problems during testing and deployment. While the announcement is a major blow to prime contractors Lockheed Martin and Austal USA, there is
a chance a modified version of the ship could emerge as the Navys top choice to fill out its fleet. Hagels announcement halts contractual discussions beyond 2016, but thats after the next election, said Stu Slade, Forecast
Internationals warships analyst. There could be major changes to the program once a new president and legislators are in office. This isnt a done deal. Its certainly a setback for the LCS program viewed in isolation, but its one that
could yet be reversed, he told National Defense. Hagel sent Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert back to the drawing board, instructing them to evaluate more capable and lethal
alternatives to the ship. The LCS was designed to perform certain missions, such as mine sweeping and anti-submarine warfare, in a relatively permissive environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the
independent protection and firepower to operate and survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia-Pacific, Hagel said in February. If we were to build out the LCS
program to 52 ships, as previously planned, it would represent one-sixth of our future 300-ship Navy. Given continued fiscal restraints, we must direct future shipbuilding resources toward platforms that can operate in every region
and along the full spectrum of conflict, he added. Officials will consider new designs, existing vessels and a modified LCS, examining ship cost, delivery date, mission and weapons requirements and sensors, Hagel said in a memo
obtained by Reuters. Greenert and Sean Stackley, the Navys acquisition lead, issued a directive in March establishing a small surface combatant task force to evaluate the Navys options, including the lethality of possible ship
designs to air, surface and undersea threats. The task force will be lead by John Burrow, executive director of the Marine Corps Systems Command. The task forces findings will be due in July. Slade said the Navy most likely will
procure larger, better-armed versions of the LCS a move that would increase the price of the ships and would be even more profitable for Lockheed Martin or Austal. The littoral combat ship comes in two variants the Freedom-
class monohull built by Lockheed and Austals Independence-class trimaran. Both types feature a mission bay that can be outfitted with modules containing weapons, unmanned underwater vehicles and other equipment for surface
warfare, mine countermeasures or anti-submarine warfare. The Freedom-class ship is as survivable in combat as the Navy specified it to be, but could be modified to be more so, said Joe North, Lockheed Martins program manager.
Were building LCS to fight, and its semi-planing steel monohull design meets all of the current customer requirements in survivability, he said. LCS is actually already more survivable than the three ship classes that it replaces, so
if they want to leverage more requirements on it, they can do that. That comes at a cost. If the Navy decides to move forward with procuring a modified littoral combat ship or even a frigate-sized ship, both Lockheed Martin and
Austal have floated international versions that could fit the bill, Slade said. Lockheeds multi-mission combat ship could be scaled up from the Freedom classs hull length of 378 feet to that of a frigate and outfitted with a version of
the Aegis combat system, according to material from the company. Before Austal ended its teaming agreement with General Dynamics in 2010, the companies in 2007 debuted their own international LCS variant, although few details
about the ship are known. A modified, frigate-sized LCS could cost about $800 million per copy, or double the current price, Slade said. Not all are convinced that the littoral combat ship will survive, however. The
program has its fair share of detractors in Congress, such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Brad Curran, a defense analyst with Frost & Sullivan.
Lawmakers have debated the ships operational and technical capabilities for years, and so far the results have not been great .
The Navy is more likely to select an older, proven design to build up the fleet, Curran said. His personal choice and the ship he believes is most likely to ultimately be purchased, albeit in small amounts is the Arleigh Burke-
class guided missile destroyer manufactured by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Huntington Ingalls. Arleigh Burkes can do it all, and theyre proven. They can kill other ships. They can find and kill subs. They can find and
kill aircraft and missiles with the Aegis ballistic missile system and then attack ground targets. Its got a wide variety of weapons, he said. The littoral combat ship, in my opinion, just cant compare. The Navy could possibly also
purchase a frigate from a foreign manufacturer such as the U.K.s BAE Systems or Frances DCNS, he said. While the service might be able to afford a modified littoral combat ship or another existing vessel, it is unlikely that it will
be able to procure a new design, Curran and Slade agreed. In this budget environment , how are you going to get a new program
started? Curran asked. Its very difficult , and the Navy has not shown that theyve been great about putting out a new ship. Look at the history lately. Youve got the littoral combat ship, and then
youve got the Zumwalt DDG 1000. ... It hasnt had a great record. The littoral combat ship program has been plagued by criticism since its inception .
One of the most scathing claims was that the ship would not be able to sustain itself through a major battle.
Link Port Security
Port security causes controversy spending backlash
AP, 8-12-2011 US ports spend big on post-9/11 security
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9P2MPG81.htm DA: 6/7/14

The big challenge has been keeping a closer watch on imported cargo without imposing a costly slowdown on foreign trade. There's also a
huge cost to the nation's 185 public seaports themselves, often passed along in tariffs and fees to the shippers. The Savannah port, for example, tacks on a
$5.75 security fee for every cargo container it handles. "It clearly is unfortunate and an extreme cost financially on international commerce," said
Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority, who can see the lines of trucks pulling their cargo through radiation scanners from his office window.
"But there's no real alternative today." U.S. ports worry Congress will make deep cuts in port security funding in the fiscal 2012
budget. An appropriations bill that recently passed the House included $1 billion in cuts to the Department of Homeland
Security, largely by slashing its grant programs. The American Association of Port Authorities says U.S. ports stand to lose half or more of
the funding they're counting on to fulfill security improvement plans that look five years ahead. "With the debt-ceiling crisis, we're just
getting hammered," said Susan Monteverde, the group's vice president for government affairs.
Agency Links
Link Army Corps of Engineers
Army Corps projects link perceived as wasteful spending and dominated by
politics
Chris Edwards, researcher and author at the CATO Institute, March 2012 Cutting the Army Corps of
Engineers, http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usace DA: 6/7/14

The decentralized and congressionally dominated structure of the Army Corps has made it an unparalleled
pork-barrel machine. Virtually all the agency's construction budget is "earmarked" for individual projects
in particular states. Politics dominates any rational process of trying to fund only those projects that have
high returns. Taxpayer money is often directed to low-value projects in the districts of powerful politicians, not to those projects that make
the most economic sense. While Corps' projects are supposed to be based on detailed economic and environmental analyses, political pull
often determines the agency's priorities . In an investigation of the Corps in 2003, the Washington Post noted that
"powerful members of Congress dictate the selection, pace, and price tag for major projects."25 While levee
upgrades in central New Orleans were stalled prior to Hurricane Katrina, dubious projects elsewhere in Louisiana and other states moved ahead.
Link Coast Guard
Coast guard funding causes controversy GOP budget conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progresss
Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is
the Public Lands Project Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public
Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-ways-that-looming-budget-cuts-to-
public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-all-americans/ DA: 6/10/14

On January 2, 2013 a set of large, across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011.
These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major
domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands. The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of
budget conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe super committeewas unable to come to an
agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so,
federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2 trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered a
plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only
an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national
security. Sequestrations impacts could be equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation. Sequestration will have a
bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer
places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional
sources of revenue must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge he convinced many in Congress to sign
promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy
government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can
move forward. But unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are going to have to start making do
without some of these vital services we now consider fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the
Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might mean, including: Less accurate
weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and
Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no
doubt Americans will feel the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites, firefighters, American-made energy, and
hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for
these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and
security (weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber,
grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-
1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for conservation should not
be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order
to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing these necessary services to the American people, congressional Republicans must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue
increases and spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans
due to the economic and societal benefits they provide. Attempting to balance the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to
increase revenue means we will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer places to hunt, fish, and
relax. Impact on public lands and oceans The White House Office of Management and Budget released a report in September determining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduction of 8.2 percent for discretionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spendi ng. All of the cuts described in thi s issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that has a defense function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 mil lion in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provi de much specificity about how these cuts would be adminis tered to individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line i tems where appropriations are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the Nationa l Park Service operations
budget wil l lose $183 mil lion, but i t does not specify which services or which par ks wi ll bear the brunt of this reductionthose decisi ons are left to t he agencies and departments themselves. It is t herefore difficult to guess what sort of cut s the agencies might ma kefor example, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many j obs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a maj or impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the agencies provide. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most important and evident investments t hat the federal government makes is i n weather prediction. But sequestration could threaten the governments abil ity to provi de accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If t his happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, bli zzards, drought s, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is t he nations primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the Nat ional Hur ricane Centers storm-tracki ng capabili ties to the long-term proj ections of global climate change. Even the Weather Channels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when i t comes to forecasting capabilit ies. As accurate as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted it s landfall days before U.S. models did. As a resul t, when meteorologists so ught to predict t he arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New Yor k/New Jersey area less than a week after Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibili ty to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction capabil ities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut
would make t hem even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nations aging weather monitoring satelli tes. The Government Accountabil ity Office predicted that even at current spending level s, to buy replacement satellites, there will li kely be a gap in satel lite data last ing 17 to 53 monthsthe time it ta kes t he old satel lite t o shut down and when its replacement can come online. During thi s time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and bli zzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Constr ucti on account would face a $149 mill ion reduction, according to the Office of Management and Budgets proj ections. This wou ld almost certainly extend the amount of t ime the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potent ially causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development Energy development is an important and legitimate use of our lands and oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf
(lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore) provide substant ial natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands and waters. Sequestration, however, could potentially hinder government agencies from planning, studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer significant opportunities for renewable energy
development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also
making progress when it comes to offshore wind development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts Nantucket Sound.
And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers, the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this
progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and ocean management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and help bui ld fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means proj ects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the
process of energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stall ing of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will al so mean a greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land Manage ment faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account i s devoted t o energy and minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy proj ects. The Departments Fish and Wi ldl ife Service also has funds that all ow it to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account t hat is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by $105 mill ion i n 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could del ay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by $13 mill ion
in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency manages exploration, science, leasing, permitt ing, and development of offshore energy resources, both fossi l and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf. Addit ionally, offshore drill ing safety could be compromised by the fiscal showdown. The Office of Management and Budget notes t hat the agency that oversees offshore oil and gas rigs to ensure safety and environmental standardst he Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcementis slated to be slashed by $16 mill ion alt ogether in fiscal year 2013. As this agency noted in it s budget j ustification: The bureau conducts thousands of inspections of OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] facilit ies and operations covering tens of thousands of safety and pollution prevent ion componentsto prevent offshore accidents and spil ls and t o ensure a safe working environment. The bureau stri ves to conduct annual inspections of all oi l and gas operations on the OCS, whi le focusing an increasing proporti on of resources on the
highest risk operations in order to examine safety equipment designed to prevent blowouts, fires, spill s, and other maj or accidents. A $16 million cut to these operations could be dangerous for wor ker safety and well-being, as well as t hat of the ecosystems, communities, and busi nesses that rely on a healthy ocean. Further reductions to the budget of the U. S. Coast Guard, which serves as the first responder in the event of an oil spill, could also affect its abili ty to respond t o emergencies and are detailed later in this report. Fewer wil dland firefighters Our land management agencies also make critical investments in fighting forest and wi ldland fires. This year saw devastating fires on bot h private and public lands but was particularly bad for national forestsa fire in the Gila Nati onal Forest, for example, was New Mexicos largest-ever fire. And the National Interagency Fire Center has determined the amount of acreage burned by wildfires has been increasing in recent decades. Land management agencies provide first-responder resources and capacity in terms of firefighters, equipment, and critical funding for fight ing these blazes. They help keep American
families safe in times of need, particularly those whose homes are close to wild places. But the U.S. Forest Service faces tremendous cuts to i ts firefighti ng capabili ties under sequestration. Its Wildland Fire Management account, which funds preparedness, fire suppression, ha zardous-fuels removal, restoration, and state fire assistance, among other things, i s slated t o be cut by $172 mil lion in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. Additionally, the Department of the Interiors Wi ldland Fire Management account faces a $46 million cut next year. The department also funds the FLAME Wil dfire Suppressi on Reser ve Fund, which will be cut by $7 million under sequestration. In tota l, funding for wildland fire prevention and assistance at the land management agencies will be cut by $225 mil lion. Without such funding, not only will Americans property and lives be more at risk, but special places such as national forests and national parks wil l be less resil ient i n the face of future fires. Closures of nat ional par ks Nat ional par ksoften referred to as Americas best ideaare well-loved and protect our natural, cult ural, and historical heritage. In
addition to famous national parks such as Yell owstone and the Grand Canyon, the 398 national park unit s managed by the National ParkService range from Cape Cod National Seashore to the Apost le Islands Nat ional La keshore to the Flight 93 Nati onal Memorial. And yet many, if not all, of these national parkunits would face budgetary impacts under sequestration. These coul d include par kclosures, fewer visitor resources including educational programs, and a reduction in parkstaff such as rangers who help wi th upkeep on these si tes. Combined, all of these changes coul d lead to far worse visitor experiences at national par ks, making them less desirable vacation dest inations for American and international tourist s. Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget determined that the National Par kService as a whole faces a $218 mill ion cut in fiscal year 2013. As seen in the chart below, the maj ority of this cut i s in the Operation of the National Park System account, which funds programs such as protection of resources, law enforcement and parkrangers, visitor services l i ke education and i nterpretation, and maintenance such as trail construction
and campgrounds. Potential cuts to the nat ional Park Service in fiscal year 2013 The Operation of the National Park System account also contains much of the funding for agency staffin fiscal year 2012 nearly all of the funds to pay the National Park Services employees were housed in this account. An 8.2 percentor $183 mil lioncut t o the Operation of t he National Park System account could cripple some of the most important funct ions of the National Par kService, which was already facing a decreasing budget and a serious maintenance backlog. While i t is difficult to know for sure what exactly would be cut due to lac kof i nformation from the agency, the National Parks Conservation Association speculates that these cuts would very likely lead to t he furloughi ngor i ndefinite closureof national parks. A cut of t his magnit ude would al so l i kely lead to the loss of many parkrangers, particularly during the busy visi ting season. The organizat ion also warned that cuts of this magni tude could lead to par kclosures and calculated t hat an approximately 8 percent cut would be equivalent to clo sing up to 200 nati onal par kuni ts wi th the smallest
operating budgets, closi ng 150 parks with low vi sitat ion rates, or closing a handful of large and famous parks such as the Nationa l Mall and Memorials, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Gateway National Recreation Area. In addition to the fact that visitors may not be able to see these places, their closures coul d also lead to decli nes in revenue and even j obsthe Nati onal Park Service stimulated $31 bi llion in economic contributions and 258, 000 j obs in 2011. Fewer places to hunt Americas lands and oceans also provide important opportunit ies for recreation, including hunt ing and fishing. Many of the areas that are open to these activi ties also provide nonwildlife-related recreation opportunities such as hi king, camping, boat ing, and off-road vehicle use. Not only are these areas important places to play, they also are important economic drivers: A recent report from the U.S. Fi sh and Wi ldlife Service found that more than 37 million Americans hunted or fished i n 2011, contributing bill ions of dollars to the economy. A number of agencies that oversee recreational hunting and f ishing face budgetary cuts. The Bureau of Land Management, for example, manages
256 million acres of public lands, much of which is open to sportsmen. The agencys largest budget line i tem is Management of Lands and Resources, which inc ludes nearly all of its funds to manage wildl ife and fisheries, wi lderness, and other recreation resources. And yet the Office of Management and Budget predict s this account wil l see an $85 mil lion cut in fiscal year 2013. The U.S. Fi sh and Wi ldlife Service also has an vital role in providing hunt ing and fi shing opportunit ies because it funds wildl ife programs and manages the national wildlife refuges that serve as fish and game habitats. The Resource Management account in its budget houses operations such as vi sitor services, law enforcement, refuge maintenance, habitat conservation, and national fi sh-hatchery operations. This account would see a $105 mil lion cut in fi scal year 2013, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The Nort h American Wetlands Conservation Fund, which prov ides federal grants to restore wetlands for fish and wi ldlife, would be cut by $3 mill ion, while the Federal Aid in Wildl ife Restorati on program (Pittman-Robinson), which provi des federal funds to
states for wildlife management and restoration, would be cut by $31 mil lion. The Forest Service also faces cuts that would impair i ts abil ity to provi de American sportsmen with recreation opportuni ties. Its National Forest System account, which woul d be cut by $129 mil lion, funds priori ties such as forest restoration, which provi des new places to hunt and fish; planning in order to manage recreation opportunit ies; and an entire account devoted to Recreation, Heritage, and Wil derness. In addition, it s Forest and Rangeland Research line item, which has a small subaccount for Recreation Research and Development, would be cut by $24 mill ion, and the State and Private Forestry account, which provi des funds for open space conservation and new protected areas, would be cut by $21 mil lion. While i t is unclear exactly which programs will be cut at each of these agencieswe have merely predicted potential impl ications of budget cut sthere is lit tle doubt that cut s woul d impact the hunting and f ishing experience that Americans currently enj oy. And cuts of this magnitude could potent ially lead to a decline in t he quality of wildlife habitat, fewer
places that are protected for their hunting and fishi ng values, less law enforcement, poorly maintained hiking trails, deterioration of visitor facili ties, fewer education programs, unprocessed hunt ing and access permits, and the basic disintegration of visit or experiences overallall of which means less revenue. Less fish on your table Americas saltwater fisheries, both commercial and recreational, are managed by the [NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys National Marine Fi sheries Service. Despi te an onerous and cost ly legal mandate to end overfishing in U. S. waters and set strict science-based annual catch limits in all fisheries beginning in 2011, t his service s budget has already declined by more than 10 percent from an all-time high of $1 bil lion in 2010 to $895 mill ion for fiscal year 2012. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Operations, Research, and Facilit ies accountwhich includes funding for day -to-day operations of the National Marine Fisheries Servicewil l be cut by 8.2 percent if sequestration occurs. If the Office of Management and Budget applies that reduction equally across all the agencys departments,
that would mean a further reduction of $73 mil lion from the Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service, on top of the 10 percent cut t his year. These cuts could have maj or impacts on getting fish to our kitchen tables. No matter how the sequestration cuts end up being distri buted, t hey will mean the agencys fisheries scientist s wil l have fewer resources with which to carry out research that informs the fishery stockassessments on which catch limits are based. If scientists know less, they will have to be more conservative with catch limits to ensure overfishi ng does not occur. This means fishermen will be forced to ca tch less, leading directly to fewer recreational opportun ities, less fish in the market place, and a loss of revenue to coastal businesses and communities. The cuts will also have impacts on j obs because fishing in U.S. oceans is a massive economic driver in coastal regions. Salt water anglers spent $19. 5 bi llion in 2009, according to Nati onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency estimates, and the recreational fishing industry was directly r esponsible for more than 300,000 j obs (these figures do not include costs such as hotel rooms, meals, travel, and ot her
services). This same report found that commercial fisheries accounted for more than 1 million j obs and more than $116 bi lli on in sales impacts. Members of the House of Representatives Appropriati ons Committee stated in a report on the 2012 budget for t he federal governments Commerce, Justice, and Science account that, Healthy levels of investment in [fisheries] scientific research are the key to long-term economic growth. And yet the legislation accompanying that report still slashed more than $200 mi llion from the presidents recommended budget. Sequestration will cut even more. Diminished ocean safety On October 28, amid Hurricane Sandys 30-foot waves and wind gusts of up to 70 miles per hour, the tal l shi p Bounty began to founder about 90 miles off the North Caroli na coast. As the 16 crew members were forced to abandon ship, t he U.S. Coast Guard went to wor k, launching two helicopters into the teeth of the storm. Tragically, the ocean claimed the lives of the ships captain and one of it s crewmembers, but j ust a few hours after receiving the distress call, the 14 other crewmembers were safely on shore. All in a days wor k.
Despite the Coast Guards high-profile, action-movie-worthy heroics such as the Bounty rescue or the remarkable efforts to pluck thousands of stranded New Orleans residents
from rooftops during and after Hurricane Katrina, the fifth branch of our armed services largely toils in anonymity . But since the Coast Guard was
shifted into the newly created Department of Homeland Security in the departmental reshuffling following the 9/11 attacks, its suite of missions has increased dramatically. In addition to carrying out search-and-rescue activities,
patrolling our maritime boundaries to prevent narcotics and illegal immigrants smuggling, enforcing fisheries regulations, and coordinating response to offshore pollution events such as the BP oil spill, one of the services core
missions is now protecting our maritime border from threats including that of a terrorist attack. Sequestration will only reduce the Coast Guards capacity to accomplish all of these tasks effectively. Meanwhile, the ships the
Coast Guard uses to carry out its vital missions are literally rusting beneath their feet. High Endurance Cutterssuch as the 368-foot Gallatin, which led the search for the Bountys missing
captain in the days after the rescueare on average 43 years old and their age is showing. According to the Government Accountability Office, the eight Cutters in the Coast Guard fleet together lost 528 operational days in 2011
alone due to unscheduled maintenance issues. The report went on to state that 10 of the 12 vessels deployed to Haiti in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake experienced severe failures of parts or systems, which diminished their
availability to deliver emergency aid and perform medical evacuations. As Shell and other oil companies look to expand oil drilling operations in the Arctic Ocean, the Coast Guard currently has just one functional icebreaking ship,
with no plans to build any more. This is important because the Coast Guard is responsible for overseeing drilling safety operations, and needs infrastructure like icebreakers in case of a spill or other disaster. By contrast, Russia, which
already operates seven nuclear-powered icebreakers, recently announced plans to build 30 more ships by 2030and three more by 2015. The sequestration process will have significant negative ramifications for both the
Coast Guards effort to build new ships to replace their aging fleet and for the services day-to-day operations. The deal would slash nearly half a billion dollars from the Coast Guard budget, which Republicans and
Democrats alike agree is already too thin. The reductions will include $247 million from the Operating Expenses account, and $115 million from the
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvementsthe former account pays for Coast Guard personnel and missions, and the latter for the construction of new ships and aircraft. These cuts will result in
decreased homeland security and maritime safety for all Americans.
Coast Guard funding controversial massive cuts in funding and no Congressional
support
Aviation Week 7-8-2013 U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Aircraft May Fall To Cuts
http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-coast-guard-patrol-aircraft-may-fall-cuts DA: 6/9/14

For the U.S. Coast Guard, it is the beginning of the end and not in a good wayas it eyes a massive proposed cut to its long-
struggling recapitalization efforts. And for one major European aerospace company, EADS, it also could be the second of a one-two punch from Washington this year that challenges its long-
running desire to break into the top level of U.S. defense contractors. Since the late 1990s, the fifth U.S. armed serviceseemingly always the last to be
considered when it comes to funding and recognitionhas been struggling to design, buy and deploy a modernized fleet of aircraft, ships and other
equipment to meet its wide-ranging mission requirements. Now U.S. officials appear to be all but abandoning their effort to overhaul the Coast
Guard's aging fleets, proposing to cut a third of the funding for a five-year acquisition program that already was going to support only two-thirds of the service's missions, which range from
homeland defense to fishing enforcement. Worst of all, lawmakers seem resigned to going along. It is time for the president to tell Congress what missions the
Coast Guard will no longer conduct, says House Coast Guard and maritime transportation subcommittee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). It is simply irresponsible to continue to send our
servicemen and women out on failing legacy assets commissioned over 50 years ago and expect them to succeed in their missions. Under the latest iteration of the five-year capital investment
plan and its consequences, unveiled piecemeal this spring with the fiscal 2014 budget request, the service would receive a total of about $5.1 billion in acquisition funding, or around $2.5 billion
less than the roughly $7.6 billion included in the version of the plan issued last year, according to Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations. This is one of the
largest percentage reductions in funding that I have seen a five-year acquisition account experience from one year to the next in many years, says
CRS naval affairs specialist Ronald O'Rourke. Nevertheless, there has been no change in the Coast Guard's strategic environment since last year that would suggest a
significant reduction in its future missions, he testified June 26 to Hunter's panel. But money was always an issue. To meet the existing plan, before the latest proposal, the Coast
Guard needs about $2 billion in acquisition funding every year, according to its commandant, Adm. Robert Papp. The latest five-year plan averages $1.02 billion per year, compared to $1.53
billion per year under last year's version.
Coast Guard funding links no constituency to support increases
David Helvarg is President of the Blue Frontier Campaign (An award-winning journalist, he produced
more than 40 documentaries for PBS, The Discovery Channel, and others. 10-24-2013 The Coast Guard
Still Needs Rescuing http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-helvarg/the-coast-guard-still-needs-
rescuing_b_4146760.html DA: 6/9/14

After 223 years you'd think the Coast Guard would have proved its usefulness to the nation. Instead, even after the government shutdown, its essential
personnel still face unprecedented funding cuts and growing demands that threaten their ability to operate. Although one of the nation's five armed services, the Coast Guard
is the only one not located in the pork-laden Department of Defense but living on far thinner gruel provided by a
series of foster agencies including, since 2003, the Department of Homeland Security. The House Appropriations Committee recently complained about the Coast Guard's "egregious" 2014 funding cuts, castigating DHS's budget for eliminating essential functions without suggesting an end to
the across-the-board budget sequester that's doing equal harm. The Coast Guard is now facing a 5 percent budget cut even as sequestration costs it
an additional 5 percent. Plans to modernize its mostly obsolete fleet are at "dead ahead slow." Given its vast duties on the ocean, Great Lakes and rivers -- including Search And Rescue (saving an average of 10 people a day), port security, oil spill
response, drug and migrant interdiction, ship inspections, fisheries enforcement, etc. -- the public interest might better be served by doubling their $10 billion budget. After all, Republican senators' asking price for immigration reformremains $30 billion for increased border security,
including a "surge" of 20,000 new border agents at a time when illegal crossings on the U.S. -Mexico border are at a 40-year low. Instead of expanding the Border Patrol they might consider adding those new bodies to the 43,000 active-duty men and women who secure our maritime borders:
the Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, Gulf, Great Lakes and Arctic Ocean, only not so much nowadays with Coast Guard offshore patrols down 15 percent due to budget cuts. Without strong advocates in
Washington , the service long ago learned to internalize its lack of support by promising to "Do more with less." Its leadership even came to believe that giving taxpayers more "bang for the buck" might win them
support from politicians who complain about government waste. What "doing more with less" actually got themis less. A few examples: In 1994, the Clinton administration called for "streamlining" of the federal government and asked agencies to propose ways to operate with a 10 percent
reduction in force. While other agencies used bureaucratic delays to avoid the cuts the Coast Guard voluntarily reduced its personnel by 12 percent, laying off 4,000 people. Still, on 9/11 they managed to coordinate the waterborne evacuation of half a million people from lower Manhattan. In
the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 the Coast Guard proved to be the only part of government functioning in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast, rescuing over 33,000 people that week. Congress and the Bush White House gave them no budget boost. The stress of being under-
resourced became apparent during the BP oil disaster in 2010 when so many Coast Guard resources were sent to the Gulf that oversight of major American ports was left in the hands of junior offices and offshore drug smuggling and illegal fishing spiked. In 2011 the Coast Guard led U.S.
forces into Haiti following that nation's devastating earthquake but ten of the twelve aging Cutters sent there suffered breakdowns including two that required emergency repairs and one that had to be dry docked. Luckily by the time Superstorm Sandy hit in 2012 the federal disaster response
system had been fixed so that the Coast Guard didn't have to act alone. The service is now in the process of replacing its aged high seas ships with eight modern National Security Cutters. Still, last year the Obama administration proposed cutting the number from eight to six, claiming the
Navy could pick up the slack. The newest federal budget has reinstated the seventh ship while Congress and the White House argue over the eighth. Meanwhile the Navy, with 16 times the Coast Guard's budget, is on track to acquire 20 Littoral (coastal) Warfare ships of the same size and
price and is lobbying for 32 more. The Navy's R&D budget is actually larger than the Coast Guard's entire budget. Yet the Coast Guard keeps getting new assignments like protecting America's newest blue water coast emerging with the melting ice of the Arctic. While recommissioning an
icebreaker from the 1970s Congress has failed to prioritize new icebreakers, leaving the service with a total of two plus one on the Great Lakes. Nor has new money been allocated for the additional people, boats and aircraft needed to operate at the top of the world. As a result Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral Robert Papp recently announced that for at least the next 10 years the Coast Guard will not open a sector (area) station in Barrow, Alaska, on the north slope but continue to operate in the Arctic by sending one of its National Security Cutters -- at present there are only
three in operation -- up to the ice each summer. That will seriously cut into its anti-drug and pirate fishing patrols. In response to budget cuts and the sequester Admiral Papp has admitted the service has passed the point of diminishing returns, pointing out that, for example, it is now
interdicting fewer multi-ton drug shipments (the Coast Guard captures more cocaine than the DEA, FBI and all state and local law enforcement combined). But before his revelation had time to sink in he defaulted to the service's traditional position of making due, telling a congressional
committee this spring, "We will make the best use of the resources you provide to safely and efficiently conduct operations in the area of greatest risk to the nation." What he might have said is, "The Coast Guard can no longer remain a world-class maritime law-enforcement agency and
armed service given the inadequate resources you now provide." That is, he could have sounded more like the heads of the other Armed Services when they testified with great theatricality about the impact of the sequester on them. But in Admiral Papp's case he'd have the added advantage of
telling the truth. The Coast Guard is the only armed service that actually has no fat to cut. In fact it is being starved
of lean muscle. And no one seems to care enough to rescue them.

Link NOAA
NOAA funding costs PC Obama pushes, spending causes intense opposition and
pushes off other agenda items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation, environmental, and legislative
issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy
administrator of the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also former
majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 6-18-2013 United States:
The Budget Outlook For Maritime Programs For FY2014
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budget+Outlook+for+Maritime+
Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14

The President's budget request for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, was delivered late this year. The President's budget arrived in Congress in the
midst of two very different views of the budget passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions. These resolutions, while non-binding, provide
guidance to their respective appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on
March 23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget request, in the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put
people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent [infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He al so proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our
goods." The President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas, including ports, to spur job growth and enhance our nation's
infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime Administration ("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The
MARAD budget includes $208 million for the Maritime Security Program; $81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and mariner jobs resulting from food aid programreform" (caused by last year's
sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from 75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The President's budget
continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference cuts. (See H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the
Coast Guard, the President has requested a total of $9.79 billion, or 5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. Thi s request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast Response
Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These agencies would receive $13.45
billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated National Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to
this request for consolidating the grants into one block grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reformlegislation is passed this year. For NOAA, the President has requested a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541
million over the 2012 spending plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the National Ocean Service, of which the Marine Debris Program has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants,
which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of $2.186 million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and an increase of $21 million to support an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's
oceanographic research fleet. Summary The House and Senate are currently holding a series of hearings featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests. The House of Representatives is likely to pass appropriation
bills that are vastly different from the White House's request. In fact, Members of the House Appropriations Committee, such as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee, have already questioned whether full funding can be provided for the Commerce/NOAA budgets. It also
remains to be seen whether Congress can revert to regular order, i.e., by passing the individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another
CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has a desire to return to regular order, but this is not likely to happen in the near term except for defense agencies where
bipartisan agreement is more likely to be reached. The government keeps limping along with cuts from sequester, delays in Congressional
approval for spending plans, and uncertainties in the outcome for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are delayed.
The House and Senate will once again have to debate their respective visions for the 2014 budget and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime,
Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a fight over offsetting budget cuts. Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the debt
ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
NOAA funding is a heavy lift causes Congressional controversy
Jeff Mervis reports on science policy in the United States and around the world. He's covered science
policy for more than 30 years, including a stint at Nature, and joined Science in 1993.
3-25-2013 Congress Completes Work on 2013 Spending Bill
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/03/congress-completes-work-2013-spending-bill DA: 6/11/14

U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the rest of the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20 March on
a bill to fund the government through 30 September. The heavy lifting was completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the
Senate's version. The so-called continuing resolution modifies some of the more onerous aspects of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester that went into effect earlier this month. But
the spending bill retains the overall $85 billion reduction in a trillion-dollar budget that covers discretionary spending (which covers most science agencies). The Senate bill provides a detailed
spending road map for the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Nat ional Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have received very little guidance beyond an overall amount they can spend. Dickering
over the National Oceanoic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) 2013 budget caused plenty of sturm and drang over the
past year. But the final outcome has agency advocates feeling somewhat serene. "NOAA did well given the constraints of a very tough budget situationnot perfect, but it could have
been much, much worse," says Scott Rayder, a former top NOAA aide who is now a senior adviser at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom
line: Thanks to Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a
Sandy relief bill approved earlier this year that specifies how the agency must use the funds. The result is that some of NOAA's research accounts will still feel pain from the automatic cuts
known as the sequester. The math can be hard to follow. Overall, Congress gave NOAA $5.1 billion in its final 2013 spending bill, matching the president's request. At first glance, that total
appears to be an increase. But the bill also requires a cut of nearly 2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits, reducing the total to about $5 billion. The
sequesterabout a 5% cutfurther reduces the total to about $4.74 billion, some $150 million below NOAA's 2012 total of $4.89 billion. The Sandy relief bill finalized in February, however,
added $476 million to NOAA's budget for a range of specific needs, such as repairing laboratories and "hurricane hunter" aircraft and new weather radars and satellites. The add-on put NOAA
back into the black for 2013, despite the sequester, and gives the agency greater spending flexibility for some programs. Other programs, however, will still feel pain. The
largest, including its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the National Marine Fisheries Service, are likely to end up with flat or slightly reduced budgets.
And at least one research-related program will cease to exist. Congress endorsed a controversial plan to shut down NOAA's National Undersea
Research Program (NURP) , a $4 million program that gives academic scientists access to research submersibles, and to fold it into the agency's broader ocean exploration program. But
lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they
agreed, should be allowed to compete for continuing funding. The agency will also have to tell Congress what it plans to do with NURP's small fleet of piloted and automated undersea craft.
Link UNESCO
Congress opposes UNESCO banned contributions
John Daly, freelance consultant working on issues of technology and science for developing countries
for more than a decade, formerly director of the Office of Research at USAID, 2-26-2014
http://stconsultant.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-oceans-are-in-trouble-is-congress.html DA: 6/4/14 Edited
for gendered language

The oceans are vitally important to [hu]mankind. The oceanic environment is deteriorating, and international cooperation is vital to its protection. UNESCO
could facilitate some of that cooperation, but the U.S. Congress has blocked U.S. funding for UNESCO. The
Senate has more than a dozen treaties awaiting ratification, some submitted more than 30 years ago. ABOUT
3 billion people live within 100 miles (160km) of the sea, a number that could double in the next decade as humans flock to coastal cities like gulls. The oceans
produce $3 trillion of goods and services each year and untold value for the Earths ecology. Life could not exist without these vast water reservesand, if anything,
they are becoming even more important to humans than before. The Economist This article in The Economist indicates that the oceans are deteriorating because we
haven't managed to develop common property institutions that work to protect them. Fisheries are being over exploited. Large areas are oxygen depleted and dead.
Coral reefs are in trouble. Acidification of ocean waters is occurring and likely to become dangerous. Further treats are in view from off shore drilling and deep sea
mining. Climate change may threaten the ocean currents, with profound consequences. UNESCO is the international agency leading in ocean science, and it hosts the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Its World Heritage Center implements the World Heritage Convention; it has declared Papahnaumokukea, an
oceanic World Heritage site, accepting the U.S. plan for its protection and conservation of its resources. The United States has not paid its assessed
contributions to UNESCO for more than two years, and is banned by the Congress from any funding
for the Organization.
Lobby Internal Links
Internal Link Fisheries Lobby
Commercial fisherman are powerful lobby ensures controversy and fights
Wilmot et al, 03
David Wilmot, PhD, Executive Director of the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, a coalition of conservation organizations, Executive Director of the
National Audubon Societys Living Oceans Program, at the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council. He has a Ph.D. in Marine
Biology from the University of California, San Diegos Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Jack K. Sterne is a lawyer with more than fourteen
years of experience in ocean conservation, public lands, fisheries, and other environmental issues. He was a staff attorney at the public interest
law firm Trustees for Alaska specializing in ocean fisheries and marine mammal issues Kim Haddow is President of Haddow Communications,
Inc, serves as senior communications strategist for Sierra Club, and previously spent eight years at Greer, Margolis, Mitchell & Burns, where she
provided media strategy and produced advertising for twenty-two statewide candidate and initiative campaigns Beth Sullivan, an independent
consultant, was the Executive Director of the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund for six years. Before that, she was the managing
partner of the Campaign Design Group, an independent campaign consulting firm that was largely responsible for the 1992 Boxer and Murray
Senate wins, as well as hundreds of others., October, http://www.oceanchampions.org/pdfs/TurningTheTide.pdf

Despite victories on specific issues, however, the overall trend for ocean conservation cannot be considered positive, as the final Pew Oceans
Commission report makes clear. The influence and effectiveness of those who oppose critical conservation measures, including
many commercial and recreational fishermen and their organizations, have grown in recent years, both as a
result of the prevailing federal and state political climates and because of their improved efforts at
organizing, lobbying, and flexing their political muscle . The short-term economic evaluations of proposed conservation
measures continue to drive most marine policy debates. Thus, while the threats to the ocean and its wildlife continue to mount, efforts to
achieve real and lasting conservation are encountering powerful opposition . Unfortunately, the ocean conservation community
has had trouble countering this resistance, and finds itself increasingly on the defensive
Recreational fishers lobby incredibly powerful overcoming their opposition drains
capital
David Wilmot et al, PhD, Executive Director of the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, a coalition of conservation organizations, Executive
Director of the National Audubon Societys Living Oceans Program, at the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council. He has a
Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the University of California, San Diegos Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Jack K. Sterne is a lawyer with
more than fourteen years of experience in ocean conservation, public lands, fisheries, and other environmental issues. He was a staff attorney at
the public interest law firm Trustees for Alaska specializing in ocean fisheries and marine mammal issues Kim Haddow is President of Haddow
Communications, Inc, serves as senior communications strategist for Sierra Club, and previously spent eight years at Greer, Margolis, Mitchell &
Burns, where she provided media strategy and produced advertising for twenty-two statewide candidate and initiative campaigns Beth Sullivan,
an independent consultant, was the Executive Director of the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund for six years. Before that, she was
the managing partner of the Campaign Design Group, an independent campaign consulting firm that was largely responsible for the 1992 Boxer
and Murray Senate wins, as well as hundreds of others., October 2003, Turning the Tide
http://www.oceanchampions.org/pdfs/TurningTheTide.pdf DA: 6/11/14

Coastal Conservation Association: Coordinated Campaigns Give Clout to Recreational Fishermen CCA is a
nonprofit 501(c)(3) that is active in virtually every national fisheries debate . CCA fights for the health and longevity of
our coastal fisheries and for recreational anglers interests in them. It is a loose-knit confederation of 175 chapters in 15 different states with
85,000 members. The membership is made up of recreational anglers and sport fishermen. While it has a small and
inactive PAC, many of its members are politically active and make significant political contributions .
CCA was founded in the Gulf of Mexico region in the late 1970s in response to a crisis with redfish (dramatic overfishing and declines). The
organization has a presence up the Atlantic coast and into New England; however, it remains particularly well-connected and
powerful in the Gulf of Mexico, where four of the five governors in the region are CCA members. CCA has learned the importance of
having individual members contribute to political campaigns, which helps provide the access the organization
needs. The organization also uses the relationships that members have with important politicians and decision-makers
to reinforce long-term personal contact lobbying by professionals (Congress and state legislatures), as well as long-term
relationships with regulatory agencies (state and federal). This is all reinforced by its public education and outreach efforts.
The coordinated campaigns that result from all of these tools almost always achieve the political clout
CCA needs to succeed.

Powerful recreational fishing lobby ensures intense congressional opposition
David Wilmot et al, PhD, Executive Director of the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, a coalition of conservation organizations, Executive
Director of the National Audubon Societys Living Oceans Program, at the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council. He has a
Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the University of California, San Diegos Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Jack K. Sterne is a lawyer with
more than fourteen years of experience in ocean conservation, public lands, fisheries, and other environmental issues. He was a staff attorney at
the public interest law firm Trustees for Alaska specializing in ocean fisheries and marine mammal issues Kim Haddow is President of Haddow
Communications, Inc, serves as senior communications strategist for Sierra Club, and previously spent eight years at Greer, Margolis, Mitchell &
Burns, where she provided media strategy and produced advertising for twenty-two statewide candidate and initiative campaigns Beth Sullivan,
an independent consultant, was the Executive Director of the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund for six years. Before that, she was
the managing partner of the Campaign Design Group, an independent campaign consulting firm that was largely responsible for the 1992 Boxer
and Murray Senate wins, as well as hundreds of others., October 2003, Turning the Tide
http://www.oceanchampions.org/pdfs/TurningTheTide.pdf DA: 6/11/14

Recreational Fishing Alliance: Angling for Success by Working Capitol Hill RFA is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) with
a connected PAC. RFA also has a separate nonprofit 501(c)(3) that supports research. An active player in most national
fisheries debates and many state-level issues, RFA has 35,000 dues-paying members with another 50,000-70,000 affiliated members
(members of sport clubs or other organizations affiliated with RFA). The membership is made up of recreational anglers, boat and tackle
manufacturers, and fishing clubs. RFA protects the interests of anglers, including their ability to fish, and proclaims to be Your voice on Capitol
Hill. Founded less than a decade ago, RFA proposed from the beginning that the problems facing recreational anglers were political in nature
and would require a political solution. Its mission statement begins Create a national grassroots, political action organization to safeguard the
rights of saltwater anglers .... It is structured in a way that it can endorse/oppose candidates and participate in unlimited lobbying .
This makeup was intentional, as its founders believed a 501(c)(3) structure would be too restrictive. RFA uses a full suite of
political tools to build political champions who will introduce legislation for it and block legislation it
opposes . Its strength comes from a mix of limited electoral involvement, personal-contact lobbying, and
the ability to mobilize its base. RFA has a constant presence on Capitol Hill, state legislatures, and federal
agencies, and this presence pays off in policy success.
Fisheries lobby powerful swings fierce congressional opposition
David Wilmot et al, PhD, Executive Director of the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, a coalition of conservation organizations, Executive
Director of the National Audubon Societys Living Oceans Program, at the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council. He has a
Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the University of California, San Diegos Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Jack K. Sterne is a lawyer with
more than fourteen years of experience in ocean conservation, public lands, fisheries, and other environmental issues. He was a staff attorney at
the public interest law firm Trustees for Alaska specializing in ocean fisheries and marine mammal issues Kim Haddow is President of Haddow
Communications, Inc, serves as senior communications strategist for Sierra Club, and previously spent eight years at Greer, Margolis, Mitchell &
Burns, where she provided media strategy and produced advertising for twenty-two statewide candidate and initiative campaigns Beth Sullivan,
an independent consultant, was the Executive Director of the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund for six years. Before that, she was
the managing partner of the Campaign Design Group, an independent campaign consulting firm that was largely responsible for the 1992 Boxer
and Murray Senate wins, as well as hundreds of others., October 2003, Turning the Tide
http://www.oceanchampions.org/pdfs/TurningTheTide.pdf DA: 6/11/14

National Fisheries Institute: Cultivating Champions From the Inside Out NFI is a trade association that represents more than 800
firms in the fishing industry. These firms range from small, family-owned businesses to large multi-national corporations. It is the primary
trade association representing the commercial fishing industry. NFI practices a classical form of trade association politics, mixing modest
political donations, long-term personal contact lobbying, long-term relationships with regulatory agencies, and public education and outreach. In
doing so, NFI runs an annual lobbying day for members every year, Fly-in for Fish, which includes events like a softball game between NFI
people (the NFI Fishmongers) and Congressional staff (the Capitol Fish Heads.) NFI provides these important relationship-
building opportunities for its individual members with members of Congress, and with Congressional staff. NFI
effectively makes the people-jobs connection. This helps persuade members of Congress that supporting NFIs agenda is
truly benefiting people (and jobs) in their districts. This contention is reinforced when a member receives strong constituent
support for introducing or supporting a pro-NFI legislative item ( and little or no constituent opposition ).
NFI demonstrates that, when applied strategically, an insiders approach can be effective . Participating in electoral
politics, even at a limited level, shows elected officials that an organization understands the game and is willing to play. When reinforced
with grassroots lobbying, again even at a limited level, properly selected elected officials can become true champions .
At the end of the day, NFI has champions not enough to always get its way, but enough to advance
significant parts of its agenda and to prevent regulations and legislation it opposes.
Internal Link Fossil Fuel Industry
Fossil fuel lobby opposition ensures gridlock
Kate Gordon is a Senior Fellow at American Progress et al April 2012 Taking Action on Clean
Energy and Climate Protection in 2012

Last year threw into stark relief Americas interlinked economic, energy security, and climate crises. On the economic front Americans
called out those lawmakers who work relentlessly to build an economy that works for the wealthy few rather than for all of us, but faced
determined resistance from conservatives bent on preserving the status quo . At the same time our nations debilitating
dependence on fossil fuels and the damages caused by climate disruption became ever more obvious. Yet here too conservative
resistance was implacable . Backed by climate-science deniers and opponents of clean energygenerously
funded by their industry backersconservatives ramped up their campaign of disinformation about dirty energy
to push their pollution-promoting policy advocacy work in Washington and around the nation. The result: seemingly
insurmountable gridlock .
Link Alone Turns Case
Link Turns Climate Leadership
Link alone turns climate leadership
Schoen 12 Associate in World Resource Institutes Climate and Energy Program [Luke Schoen (Holds a Masters degree in
International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University), CLEAN TECHS RISE, PART I: Will the
U.S. and China Reap the Mutual Benefits?, ChinaFAQs Issue Brief, April 2012

OOInnovation Encouraging private investment in research and development Remaining a global leader in clean energy
technology, will require continual development and commercialization of new technologies. U.S. businesses have long called for a
national energy innovation strategy.52 A predictable and long-term clean energy policy would help reassure
innovators and venture capitalists that their efforts will pay off.53 Federal support for research, development, and
deployment Initiatives such as the Department of Energys Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) can fill a
gap in funding game-changing technologies that may appear too risky for private investors, but with the potential to generate large
economic and environmental returns if successful. OOFederal Executive branch action The Environmental Protection Agency has
proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that would limit emissions from new power plants to no
more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. These standards would reinforce trends
toward low-carbon energy sources, and give businesses greater certainty about future investments in the
energy sector.54 National Vehicle rules Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Executive branch can tighten national fuel
standards to improve fuel economy for road, marine, and airborne vehicles. Proposals for further tightening are pending.55
Link Turns Energy Investment
Link alone turns investment
Schoen 12 Associate in World Resource Institutes Climate and Energy Program [Luke Schoen (Holds a Masters degree in
International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University), CLEAN TECHS RISE, PART I: Will the
U.S. and China Reap the Mutual Benefits?, ChinaFAQs Issue Brief, April 2012

OOInnovation Encouraging private investment in research and development Remaining a global leader in clean energy
technology, will require continual development and commercialization of new technologies. U.S. businesses have long called for a
national energy innovation strategy.52 A predictable and long-term clean energy policy would help reassure
innovators and venture capitalists that their efforts will pay off.53 Federal support for research, development, and
deployment Initiatives such as the Department of Energys Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) can fill a
gap in funding game-changing technologies that may appear too risky for private investors, but with the potential to generate large
economic and environmental returns if successful. OOFederal Executive branch action The Environmental Protection Agency has
proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that would limit emissions from new power plants to no
more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. These standards would reinforce trends
toward low-carbon energy sources, and give businesses greater certainty about future investments in the
energy sector.54 National Vehicle rules Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Executive branch can tighten national fuel
standards to improve fuel economy for road, marine, and airborne vehicles. Proposals for further tightening are pending.55
Stop-start pattern of incentives undermines investment planning
Mackler 11 (Sasha, Energy Research Director, Bipartisan Policy Center, Reassessing Renewable
Energy Subsidies, 3/22, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC_RE%20Issue%20Brief_3-
22.pdf)

Long-term predictability: as discussed previously in this paper, the current suite of tax credits is less efficient
than it could be. One way to address this issue is to extend renewable energy tax credits for longer periods of time
than the one- to two-year extensions that have been typical over the last decade. The stop-start pattern
of recent years is driven by political dynamics more than anything else. As in other policy realms, the overt
politicization of renewable energy incentives has produced inconsistent policies and frequent last-
minute, short- term extensions. By contrast, long-term predictability would allow manufacturers and project
developers to engage in long-term investment planning, which in turn would stimulate investment
throughout the renewable energy supply chain and accelerate the addition of new capacity. Many developers and
investors have indicated that they would accept smaller incentives in exchange for longer-term policy
certainty.
Consistency and certainty key to investment
Weber 12 (Michael, Research Associate/Coordinator, Worldwatch Institute, The Way Forward for Renewable Energy Policy in the US,
7/26, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/11245)

The potential for renewable energy in the US is vast. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) very recently
confirmed that renewable energy sources could conceivably cover 80 percent of US electricity demand by
2050. Great natural resource availability coupled with falling costs make RE an increasingly attractive
option in many locations. However, investors need greater government commitment and a better long-
term vision on the future role of RE in the US. They seek a degree of consistency and market
certainty that the current policy framework lacks. An extension of the current policy mix is a minimum requirement to
attract further investment. A federal RE target combined with a carbon tax would be an even better option.

Link Turns International Perception
Link alone turns international perception
Winik 91 (Jay, Senior Research Fellow, Natl Defense U, Washington Quarterly, Autumn, via InformaWorld)

The U.S. stake in speaking and acting with one voice is enormous. Two former secretaries of state, themselves of different political parties and holding
different political ideologies, have warned: The American national purpose must at some point be fixed. If it is redefined-or even subject to red e fi nit ion-w i t h every change in Ad
ministration in Wash i ng t on, the United States risks becoming a factor of inconstancy in the world. . . . Other nations-friend or adversary-unable to gear their policies to American steadiness will go their own way, dooming the
United States to growing irrelevancy. The urgent need for creating a new bipartisanship is also an acknowledgment of the changed international system. In the early 1950s, the United States produced 52 percent of the world's gross
national prodhct. It enjoyed a nuclear monopoly and was without question the world's preponderant power militarily. The past 40 years, however, have witnessed a relative decline in U.S. wealth, dictating that the United States can no
longer simply ovenvhelm any problem with its vast national resources. Economic realities have also changed domestic political realities, forcing the country to make very real choices benveen guns and butter and to establish its
priorities. Indeed, in the absence of a bipartisan consensus on the role of the United States in the world, public sentiment- including among certain foreign policy elites-is already calling for the United States to turn inward. The fact is,
however, that the twilight of the Cold War actually creates a greater need for bipartisanship as the United States confronts a more anarchical international system. The transition of the posnvar blocs from East- West bipolarity to
multipolarity will significantly alter the structure of the international arena, making conflict more, not less, likely. With the passage of time, Japan and a reunited Germany will almost certainly emerge as more assertive and
independent actors pursuing their own national interests. China will continue to be a major player on the world stage and will have great sway over world events. Furthermore, as the two superpowers continue on the path of arms
control and scale down their military efforts, as anticipated, the gap between their capabilities and those of rising powers will diminish significantly. Additionally, by the year 2000, at least a handful of new countries will possess long-
range delivery systems and weapons of mass destruction, and greater numbers of countries, including rogue states that do not adhere to or respect
traditional standards of deterrence, will possess crude but nonetheless similarly daunting weapons. These countries will be capable of terrorizing other states or of
sowing general chaos in the international system. The result will be a new interna- tional system characterized by highly dynamic interaction and, over time, shifting alliances and interests more akin to the strife-ridden European
balance of power system than the twentieth- century system, in which peace has been enforced by the nuclear balance of terror between the two superpowers. Although the risk of cataclysmic nuclear war
between the United S tates and the Soviet Union is at its lowest point in history and is likely to remain
so, it is far from certain that this new international structure will be more stable than the one it replaces.
Fixed lines between allies and adversaries will blur, and alliances will shift with greater regularity across different issues. At the same time, these changes will occur against the backdrop of a Soviet Union in decay, itself a potential
cause of vast instability; the existence of nuclear weapons; and rising nationalistic, religious, and ethnic strife stretching from Europe to the Middle East to Southeast Asia. To use Kaiser \\ilhelms words, the world
may once again be made safe for jolly little wars, the difference this time being the existence of
weapons of mass d estruction. There are few-and really no-parallels in history to serve as a model or paradigm for guiding U.S. policymakers in an international setting of this kind. Thus, at a
time when bipartisanship is at its lowest ebb, U.S. policymakers are now being challenged in more ways intellectually, politically, diplomatically, and militarily than during the past 40 years. The United States does have the resources
to continue to play a major world role and to deal with its domestic problems at the same time, although admittedly those resources are now constrained. In addition, when one looks at military, economic, and even cultural factors, the
United States has no challenger to its position as the preeminent world power should it choose this role. The problem for the United States is clearly not that epitomized by the apocalyptic cries of the decline school as portrayed by
Paul Kennedy-that is, decline following upon imperial over~tretch.~ Rather, the problem the United States faces is an international system in flux, characterized by the diffusion of military capabilities and power abroad, all of
which will create far more complex, nuanced, and unpredictable challenges. In the future, deterrence of conflict will be more difficult, and U.S. defense planners and diplomats will have to address the capabilities and intentions of a
wide array of actors far beyond that of the Soviet Union alone. Threats to U.S. interests and those of its allies will often appear ambiguous, falling in the greyer areas of not war, not peace. Rather than following the well-defined and
clearly understood rules of the road that largely governed U.S.Soviet relations, the U.S. political system will have to react to the varied crises of the
new world order. Even when working at its smoothest, it will have difficulty doing so effectively. Small-scale Sarajevos and Munichs may well be the
norm, and their prevention or containment will require a cohesive nation, acting with a clear and consistent voice in the international arena,
which will only happen if a new bipartisanship is forged. Thus, it is demonstrably clear that, in the absence of bipartisanship, dealing with the new international system will be difficult at best and at times next to impossible.
Friends and foes alike, watching U.S. indecision at home, will not see the United S tates as a credible negotiating partner,
ally, or deterrent against wanton aggression. This is a recipe for increased chaos, anarchy, and strife on the world
scene. The appeal, then, to recreate anew as the hallmark of U.S. efforts abroad the predictability and resolve that can only come from bipartisanship at home is as critical as during the perilous days following World War II.
Link Turns Trade Leadership
Link turns case sends mixed message emboldening protectionism policy alone
isnt enough rhetoric matters
Okezie, 10
Okezie Chukwumerije, Professor of Law, Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Texas Southern University,
Houston, Texas, 5/19/10,
http://jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Volume%2016.1/Chukwumerije%20MACRO.pdf

This article evaluates the implications of the emerging trade policy of the Obama administration. The article begins by sketching a picture of the
administrations trade-related initiatives and situating them in the context of the trade objectives articulated by the president during the last
presidential election. The article then examines the trade aspects of the administrations stimulus and economic recovery programs. It focuses on
their consistency with U.S. international trade obligations and with the long-standing commitment of the United States to a free and open
multilateral trading system. The article further explores the policy and political considerations that would affect the
implementation of the trade-related aspects of the administrations environmental and labor protection initiatives.
The article concludes with the caution that Obamas mixed messages on trade, measured by his rhetoric and policies ,
are detrimental to the pro-trade reputation of the United States and might embolden protectionists , both
within and outside the United States.
Undermines US trade leadership
Economist, 08 (10/8)

Both the risks of this new protectionism and the odds of it being countered depend heavily on the relationship between America and the biggest emerging economies.
As the Doha malaise has shown, active American leadership, although no longer sufficient, is still necessary for multilateral progress. Yet the politics of
trade has become increasingly difficult in America, compromising the countrys ability to take the
lead. Support for more open markets is weaker than almost anywhere else in the world. According to
this year?s Pew Global Attitudes Survey, only 53% of Americans think trade is good for their country,
down from 78% in 2002. Several other surveys in America suggest that supporters have become a
minority. In other countries support is far higher. Some 87% of Chinese and 90% of Indians say trade is good for their country, along with 71% of Japanese, 77%
of Britons, 82% of French and 89% of Spaniards.


Aff Answers
Link Turns
Link Turn Ocean Policy Popular General
Ocean policy overwhelmingly bipart WRRDA proves oceans are unique
Mike Hower journalist on sustainability, social entrepreneurship, tech, politics and law, previously work
for the United States Congress 5-30-2014 http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/05/congress-sends-12-3-
billion-water-infrastructure-bill-obamas-desk/ DA: 6/4/14

The future of our oceans, rivers, coastlines and other waterways is looking much brighter, thanks to the passing of a $12.3 billion water
infrastructure projects bill by the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) addresses management of U.S. waterways and coasts and includes billions of
dollars in high-impact projects. Assuming President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, it will be the first federal water infrastructure authorization since 2007. The bill is the product of several months of Senate-House negotiations,
as the two chambers worked to resolve disagreements over which projects should receive congressional funding. When negotiations first commenced, the House had passed a partisan amendment offered by Congressman Bill Flores
(R-TX) that would block the Army Corps of Engineers from implementing the National Ocean Policy, which promotes smart ocean planning and ocean protection. Conversely, the Senate included a provision offered by Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), which would establish a National Endowment for the Oceans (NEO) to support conservation and restoration of ocean resources. In the final WRDA bill, the Flores provision was axed while the
Whitehouse provision passed. The Flores provision would have made it much more difficult to protect important habitat and ocean wildlife; build climate resilience; address changing ocean conditions like ocean acidification;
encourage sustainable use; and provide greater certainty for businesses and other ocean users. Luckily, the provision failed and Congress preserved a policy that promotes smart ocean planning and science-based management of our
resources. The Whitehouse provision authorizes the Corps, in coordination with states, nonprofit organizations and other stakeholders, to undertake studies to determine the feasibility of projects to enhance ocean and coastal
ecosystem resilience. The studies will help the Corps identify specific projects, such as restoring wetlands that offer protection from storms, making beaches more resilient to erosion and helping ecosystems adapt to sea level rise. The
measure passed despite strong opposition from the influential conservative group Heritage Action, which urged lawmakers to vote against it. Heritage Action said the bill hikes spending while doing little to reduce bureaucracy and
limit the role of the federal government. However, the bill was passed 412-4 by the House, and 91-7 in the Senate. For a branch of
government that can barely pass a budget, this is a rare example of bona fide bipartisanship. This
legislation is a reminderan unfortunately stark reminderthat given a chance to work together in a bipartisan fashion, we
can produce results for the American people, said Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.).
Ocean policy has political support saturation point in leaders and Congress was
reached
Sam Farr, Sea Technology Magazine, January 2010 The Ocean and the Congress - Sea Technology
Magazine http://www.farr.house.gov/index.php/commentary-92328/654-the-ocean-and-the-congress-
sea-technology-magazine DA: 6/11/14

I believe that in the coming years, we'll lookback at 2009 as a turning point for ocean management , conservation and science. It may take some time to get the necessary programs
and initiatives online, but I believe a strong foundation is being established. The year got off to a great start when President Obama, during his inauguration speech, vowed to "restore science to its rightful place." Even better, he quickly followed through on that promise, appointing prominent
scientists to lead several key agencies: physicist Stephen Chu at the Department of Energy; ecologist Jane Lubchenco at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and geophysicist Marcia McNutt at the U.S. Geological Survey. Congress has had some early
successes capitalizing on this new mindset. We were able to inject additional funding into basic research andother scientific programs
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We also passed the Omnibus Public Lands Act, a package that included a number of marine related bills. Key ocean-related legislation included in the package of bills was the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act; the
Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act; the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act; the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act; the NOAA Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research Act; and a bill I introduced, the Ocean Research and Exploration
Enhancement Act, which establishes two important ocean research programs: the National Undersea Research Program and the National Ocean Exploration Program Many other ocean-related bills are receiving attention in both the House and Senate, including measures to restrict illegal
fishing and shark finning; protect coral reefs; promote environmental education; and fund research to understand harmful algal blooms. The House has also passed the STEM Education Coordination Act, which would make advances in the coordination of federal programs that support
science, technology, engineering and math education. But as we've seen over the past few months, these individual efforts have been overshadowed by larger debates consuming public opinion and congressional floor time, namely health care and climate change. But not all the
obstacles we've faced this year in our efforts to reform ocean policy have been setbacks. Just as my own reform efforts began to pick up traction in Congress, the White House weighed in by creating a Presidential Ocean Policy Task Force, made up of the heads of several agencies with
jurisdiction over ocean issues and headed up by the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The president asked the task force to recommend a national ocean policy and a strategy for incorporating marine spatial planning into our activities regarding the ocean. He also requested a
framework within which to implement both the national ocean policy and the marine spatial planning strategy. These charges were intended to build on existing recommendations, including reports fromthe Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. These reports,
combined with my own Oceans-21 legislation, provide a fairly comprehensive foundation on which President Obama could develop his own platform. That these actions were taken at all is a great step forward, but the fact that they were made so early in his White House tenure is a clear
signal that President Obama is serious about reforming ocean policy. By the time this column is printed, the task force shoul d have already issued its final recommendations for public comment. Thirty days later, in early January, the final recommendations are scheduled to be submitted to the
president. Everyone in the ocean policy community is hopeful that President Obama will act quickly to make those recommendations official. But administrative action by itself isn't enough. In Congress, we are working to develop legislation to compliment whatever those executive actions
may be. One thing is for sure: there will be components in need of legislative reinforcement and gaps that can only be addressed by Congress. I believe Oceans-21, which I have written about here in the past, will fill many of those gaps. As drafted, H.R. 21 accomplishes many of the goals the
task force suggested in its interim report. Oceans-21 establishes a national ocean policy, strengthens NOAA and creates both national and regional governance structures, compri sing federal and state participants.. So the next steps for comprehensive reform are largely dependent on how the
administration applies the recommendations fromthe task force and how Congress moves to complement the White House. What I do believe has already become clear is that the political will to
enact these changes has reached a saturation point. We have leaders in the White House and federal agencies and the desire in
Congress to ensure that the manner in which we treat the ocean promotes its long-termsustainabilityfor future generations.
Link Turn Ocean Conservation Feinstein
Feinstein supports ocean conservation influential leader in the Senate
Mike Dunmyer, Executive Director Oceans Champions, 2012 Ocean Champions Endorses Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CC0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oceanchampions.org%2Fpdfs%2FFeinsteinPR_000.pdf&ei=ZB2fU_G
4EoemyASN-ILIBQ&usg=AFQjCNHdAhIOYBCJp9QjymuEIrXhe_lUMA&sig2=vth0Al5RL12LZeJhEsqsaw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw&cad=rja DA: 6/16/14

Ocean Champions, which works to build political power for the oceans by helping to elect pro-ocean candidates to the U.S. Congress,
proudly endorses Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). As a respected senior appropriator and Chair of an Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein is very
influential, said David Wilmot, Ocean Champions President and Co-Founder. Were very pleased that she has often used that influence to help
move important ocean legislation. Since first being elected in 1992, Senator Feinstein has built a strong record on ocean
health, and has provided vocal leadership on important issues, such as restoration of the San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe. Senator Feinstein has
sponsored and cosponsored a number of bills to prevent expansion of offshore drilling, while working to expand the boundaries of the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The Senator has
also thrown her weight behind legislation to help salmon and billfish, and helped pass the Shark Conservation Act of 2009. She is also passionate about addressing
the growing problem of marine debris, epitomized by the discovery of the great Pacific garbage patch. "I'm deeply honored by the endorsement of Oceans Champions and look
forward to continuing to work to promote healthy beaches and oceans," said Feinstein. Senator Feinstein has established herself as a highly effective
representative for California residents. Today, were pleased to be able to recognize her for her leadership on ocean issues.
Link Turn Ocean Conservation Leahy
Leahy supports ocean conservation influential senior leadership on appropriations
Mike Dunmyer, Executive Director Oceans Champions, 6-3-2013 Ocean Champions Endorses Senators Leahy and Mikulski
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oceanchampions.org%2Fdocuments%2FOceanChampionsEndorsesSe
natorsLeahyandMikulski6-3-10.pdf&ei=SSCfU__bBI62yATR14CICg&usg=AFQjCNHVDmTNlLT8lWjai2S2LGAcz7F76w&sig2=eMp1O6hPaZE8KA9m-jjCMQ&cad=rja DA:
6/16/14

Ocean Champions, which works to build political power for the oceans by helping to elect pro-ocean candidates for the U.S. Congress
is proud to announce its endorsement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). As an avid diver, Senator Leahy has a
personal connection to the ocean, and Maryland's Senator Mikulski has shown how important the health of the Chesapeake Bay is to her state," said David Wilmot,
Ph.D., Ocean Champions' President and Co- Founder. "From their important role as senior appropriators , both of these Senators
have consistently supported critical ocean programs." In his role as Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee,
Senator Leahy has led the support for funding the Coral Triangle Initiative, which preserves coastal, littoral and reef resources in a
sensitive habitat that is rich in biodiversity. He has also worked to address marine invasive species and received a perfect
score from the League of Conservation Voters the past two years. Senator Leahy has been a true champion for Lake Champlain, directing $80 million to
clean up and protect the "sixth Great Lake." Senator Mikulski has been committed to ocean and estuary health throughout her 35 years of public service. She's a longtime supporter of the
Chesapeake Bay Program, which works across jurisdictions to bring groups together in order to reduce bay pollution and restore water quality. The Senator has also worked to reduce runoff into
the bay by funding wastewater infrastructure projects. The Maryland League of Conservation Voters recognized her dedication in 2009, presenting Senator Mikulski with its prestigious John V.
Kabler award for "outstanding environmental leadership and commitment." Both Senators have taken a leadership role in responding to the BP Gulf
Oil Spill. Senator Leahy said the spill shows the need for a comprehensive energy strategy driven by renewable energy. He has urged the Obama administration to greatly expand the
amount of information agencies are releasing about the spill, and recently signed onto a letter seeking to block Transocean from issuing $1 billion in dividends to its shareholders at a time when
they need to cover their liabilities in the Gulf. Senator Mikulski has asked NOAA to assess the likelihood that the spill will reach the Mid Atlantic and the Chesapeake so that appropriate
mitigation steps can be taken. Finally, she signed onto a letter opposing Virginia's offshore drilling plans. Both Senators are outstanding representatives for their states, and are the best candidates
to continue serving Vermont and Maryland. As ocean advocates in key appropriations positions, they are also the best
candidates for ocean voters.
Link Turn Hydropower
Hydropower popular bipartisan support
Regina Cline, Senior Web Editor and Analyst for Bloomberg, 1-30-2014
http://www.bna.com/hydropower-us-gets-b17179881735/ DA: 6/4/14

A pair of bills signed by President Barack Obama to streamline the approval process for small hydropower facilities has led to an increase in project
investment and calls by proponents for more legislative fixes. But a conservation group has warned the industry against assuming the new laws indicate broad public support for all new
hydropower, regardless of impacts. The small-hydropower laws are a step in the right direction but not the final step, Kevin Frank, president and chief executive officer of Voith Hydro, a major manufacturer of hydropower
equipment, told Bloomberg BNA. A second step would be to further streamline the approval process for hydropower, which now accounts for 7 percent of the electrical generating capacity in the U.S. Given the potential of the U.S.'s
80,000 dams that lack power facilities, the laws are expected to spur activity, he said. The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act (P. L. 113-23) and the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural
Jobs Act (P. L. 113-24) will speed up the approval process for small hydropower projects, which typically can involve dozens of state and federal agencies and take up to five years, Matt Nocella, assistant manager of strategic
communication for the National Hydropower Association, said in an email. Reducing the regulatory burden and capital intensive up-front costs would remove the final barriers to rapid growth in the industry, he said. In addition to
Voith, other major hydropower manufacturers include Alstom, Andritz and Weir American Hydro. Smaller manufacturers operating in the U.S. include Canyon Hydro and Mavel Americas. Developers include investor-owned utilities
such as American Electric Power, independent power producers such as PPL Holtwood and municipalities and nonprofit public power corporations such as American Municipal Power. Bipartisan Support Congress
overwhelming supported the hydropower bills, with the Senate voting 100-0 on both. In the House, P. L. 113-23
also won unanimous consent, and only seven House members voted against P. L. 113-24. Obama signed the laws Aug. 8. During a September congressional hearing on hydropower, Rep. Scott
Tipton (R-Colo.), who sponsored P. L. 113-24, said: Large-scale federal and non-federal projects are hindered by excess litigation, regulation and arbitrary requirements. Bureaucracy is exactly what we did away with in my
hydropower legislation. We need to apply similar thinking to larger projects as well. Rupak Thapaliya, national coordinator for the Hydropower Reform Coalition, a conservation group seeking to improve the condition of dammed
rivers, called the two laws signed by Obama a very good approach to hydropower development.
Link Turn MH370 Search
Broad support for MH370 search feel responsibility to recover
BBC News, 4-8-2014 Missing Malaysian plane: How much will MH370 search cost?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26927822 DA: 6/12/14

In the month since Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, search and rescue teams have patrolled areas of the southern Indian ocean,
thousands of kilometres apart. Planes, ships and submarines have all been deployed. China, Australia, Malaysia, the US, the UK New Zealand, Japan and South Korea
have all contributed to the search. So how much is it costing, and who pays? Malaysia has refused to be drawn. Acting Transport Minister Hishamuddin Hussein told reporters that the cost of mounting the search was "immaterial"
when set against the need to bring solace to the families of the missing. But mounting a search operation on this scale, and for this length of time, does not come cheap. The bill so far probably runs to 20-25m ($33-42m), estimates
Peter Roberts, senior research fellow in sea power and maritime studies at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi). This includes the cost of fuel, spare parts, and transporting supplies, as well as the relocation of staff - even costs
such as cancelled leave can push up the final bill. Chinese plane in Perth, Australia en route to rejoin search for missing Malaysian plane (6 April) China is one of more than 20 countries contributing to the search for the missing
Malaysian plane 'Sense of brotherhood' Most of the financial burden will be borne by the countries who have contributed their forces.
For example, Australia deployed a navy replenishment vessel, HMAS Success, two weeks ago. It costs AU$550,000 a day to operate, says the Department of Defence, so that comes to $7.7m ($7.2m; 4.3m) already. And that is just a
single ship. HMAS Toowoomba, which has also been involved, costs AU$380,000. Continue reading the main story Start Quote Saving life at sea is the right thing to do Peter Roberts Senior research fellow, Rusi The US
Department of Defense set aside $4m to help the search: between 8 and 24 March, it spent $3.2m, a spokesman told reporters in Washington. The UK has sent a
survey ship, HMS Echo, which is equipped with sensitive underwater detection equipment. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is not yet putting a price tag on the British role. "The operation to locate flight MH370 is ongoing as is
the work to fully identify the costs," the MoD told the BBC in a statement. In the end, the cost of sending HMS Echo to the waters off Australia will be met from Treasury contingency funds, says Mr Roberts.
Governments will take the costs within their budget "and accept they have to do it". The ship will stay there as long
as it has a role to play, he says: "Mariners have got a very strong sense of brotherhood: saving life at sea is the right thing to do."

Link Turn National Endowment
NEO popular bipartisan support
Kristan Uhlenbrock, Associate Director for Ocean Communications at American Progress. 12-13-
2013 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/05/3026311/congress-oceans-fund-sea-level-rise/ DA:
6/4/14

Thursday, behind closed doors, House and Senate conferees are meeting to negotiate an important provision in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) an investment mechanism for the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes
known as a National Endowment for the Oceans. One of the few bipartisan bills this Congress, WRDA is one that is expected to pass before the end of the year. Proponents of
the measure say creating an endowment for the oceans will provide critical resources and capacity to conserve and restore coastal wetlands. For all the coastal states, this is really big, emphasized Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
We need to relocate critical infrastructure, like water treatment plants and bridges, which are now at risk of being washed away. The National Endowment for the Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes can help coastal states and
communities protect more of this infrastructure, protect more habitat that sustains our fisheries, conduct more research, and clean more waters and beaches. The need is great and we must respond. In addition, the measure would help
cities and local governments prepare for the increasing vulnerability of coastal infrastructure such as roads, sewage treatment plants, and energy facilities to the effects of climate change. Written throughout the provision are ways to
do this, including planning for and managing coastal development to enhance ecosystem integrity or minimize impacts from sea level change and coastal erosion and protection and relocation of critical coastal public infrastructure
affected by erosion or sea level change. When seven football fields of coastal wetlands disappear every hour, calculated between 2004 and 2009 by a recent report from NOAA, its a serious problem. The report identifies human
activity, mostly urban and rural development, as one of the main causes. Loss of these wetlands is further putting pressure on coastal communities already threatened by rising seas. Sea level will most likely rise between 1.5 and 3 feet
by the end of this century, which is greater than the conservative projections from the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as recently concluded in a survey of ninety experts. Not only is that going to displace people
along the coast, but the billions of dollars that have been invested in infrastructure will be in jeopardy. In the last 80 years, Louisiana alone has lost an area of coastal land the size of Delaware, much of which had comprised barrier
islands that served a critical role defending against hurricanes and storm surge. The same thing is happening in South Carolina where 1,200 acres have been lost in the last 25 years. And on the shorelines of Alaska, indigenous villages
are retreating as they see their houses and schools sink into the ground and the sea sneaks closer with erosion rates reaching up to 100 feet a year. Climate doesnt change in a nice, linear way, says James White from the University
of Colorado Boulder on the release of a National Research Council report on Tuesday. There are thresholds and tipping points in the system. If we cross one of those, handling or adapting to that is going to be a challenge. When it
comes to adaptations, speed kills. Grappling with protection of coastal communities and what is needed for adaptation is not easy. In four densely-populated southeast Florida counties Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, and
Monroe $4 billion in taxable real estate and over five million people are at risk from only one foot of sea level rise, which is projected before the end of the century. Lawmakers are pushing for a
funding mechanism, such as a National Endowment for the Oceans, as a way to support communities faced with
these challenges. The idea of a National Endowment for the Oceans stems from a recommendation made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, comprised of
members appointed by President George W. Bush. When the commission first floated the idea of an ocean trust fund in a draft
report and asked governors for comment, support was overwhelming and bipartisan , wrote Tom Allen, former Representative from Maine.
Link Turn Offshore Wind
Offshore wind is popular no political opposition
Michael Conathan, Center for American Progress Director of Ocean Policy, 1-31-2013, Filling the
Sails of Offshore Wind Energy, Climate Progress,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/31/1521031/filling-the-sails-of-offshore-wind-
energy/?mobile=nc DA: 6/5/14

The U.S. offshore wind industry is beginning to emerge from the political doldrums that clouded its early days,
and it is finding champions in Congress , as well as in the Obama administration. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) led legislation to ensure that
offshore wind is covered by key tax provisions that had previously only applied to onshore wind. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) championed funding for offshore wind
development, including a deepwater pilot project in her home state of Maine. Governors such as Martin OMalley (D-MD) and Deval Patrick (D-MA) have
prioritized offshore wind development as well. They view it as a political victory on multiple frontscreating
sorely needed jobs in construction, operation, and maintenance, and contributing to a diverse energy portfolio while moving us closer to renewable energy targets
and away from polluting fossil fuels. As political opposition falls away from offshore wind projects, opponents are turning more toward
economic arguments against further development of this technology, suggesting it will increase electricity rates and ultimately cost jobs.
Link Defense
No Link MH 370
No link MH370 search isnt politically hot anymore
The Guardian, 5-11-2014 Flight MH370: out of the headlines, but the search goes on
http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/may/11/flight-mh370-headlines-search-malaysian-
airlines DA: 6/12/14

Two months since the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, the story that gripped the globe has slipped
from the headlines . The first funeral services have been held for some of the missing 239 passengers and crew; the first oblique jokes cracked by President Obama at a White
House press dinner. The relatives of the presumed victims, mainly Chinese, have dispersed after Malaysia closed its assistance centres. While families continue to demand
answers and action, there is a sense that the world has moved on. Publicly, governments vow to never stop
searching, but the daily updates have ceased, and the Malaysian transport minister is back to using his Twitter account to post selfies in his new glasses. The
command centre for the hunt has moved from Perth in western Australia to Canberra further from the scene of the action and a tacit suggestion that hopes of an imminent breakthrough have
faded. The best chance of swiftly locating any wreckage ended after around 30 days, the limit of battery life for locator beacons for the black box, or flight recorders but while some man-made
signals were detected, a month of hunting the predicted crash zone with the underwater robot Bluefin-21 found nothing. While the search team points out that at least 400 square kilometres of
seabed have now been trawled and eliminated, continuing the hunt over the entire 56,000sq km area could take years and the US navy has only officially leased the Bluefin for one more month.
Families are urging a full, transparent public review of all the data, with some querying whether the pattern of the electronic "handshakes" between the missing Boeing 777 and the Inmarsat
satellite the only faint trace of the plane after it disappeared from radar screens definitely points to a crashlanding in the southern Indian Ocean. At least now, says Professor Ian Wright,
director of science and technology at the National Oceanography Centre, "there's no longer a technical time pressure. But the acoustic pings [from the black
box] are obviously more difficult to triangulate than they have thought. You could be spending a lot of time mapping in the wrong place. A better thing would be to consolidate all the data, get
experts in the room and have a more considered approach for taking the search forward."